
't\ 



Class __lil^^-^^ 

Book_ —A\^ 

Gopyrightl^"._- 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND 

His Reign 

WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

SOURCES BEARING UPON THE PERIOD ^, 

AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OP BERN 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTOR'S DEGREE 



BY 

NOAH CALVIN HIRSCHY 

OP BERNE, INDIANA 



ACCEPTED BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY UPON THE 
PROPOSAL OF PROFESSOR DR. K. MARTI 

PROFESSOR DR. G. TOBLER 



BERN 
JULY 16. 1907 



DEAN 



CHICAGO 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
1909 






Copyright igog By 
The University of Chicago 



Published May igog 



Composed and Printed By 

The University of Chicago Press 

Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 



LIBRARY Of CONGRESS! 

Two Copies Received I 

my ! 9 1809 ( 

iC'-OiiS lA ^AC. ,♦'.0. 



PREFACE 

In this attempt to gather all the historic data of a dark and weary 
period of the world's history on which the sources of information are 
rather indefinite and unsatisfactory, it may at first appear that too much 
attention is paid to the general historic situation. But when we remember 
that some of the biblical sources claimed for the reign of Ochus are placed 
by scholars at different periods from the eighth to the first century, then 
this objection loses its force. The final solution of the acceptance or 
rejection of the Old Testament sources for this period seems to the writer 
to depend very largely on the clearness of our conception of the history 
of the last seven centuries before the Christian era. The reign of Ochus 
forms only a fragment of the two and a fourth centuries of Persian suprem- 
acy. But to be fully understood it must be viewed in its connection with 
the whole. It is for this reason that the history of Persia and the more 
immediate contemporary history are treated more fully than would other- 
wise be consistent with the subject. 

In chap, i the aim is simply to give a brief summary of the accepted 
history of the period, while in chap, ii and in chap, iii both the sources and 
the literature have been consulted. 

N. C. H. 

Bern 
June, 1907. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface iii 

CHAPTER 

I. A Historical Survey i 

A. Literature 

B. From Achaemenes to Cyrus 

C. Persian and Contemporary History 

II. The History of Ochus and His Reign 21 

A. The Historical Sources 

B. Literature 

C. The Empire of Ochus 

D. The Events of the Reign of Ochus 

E. The Work and Character of Ochus 

III. An Examination of the Old Testament Sources Pos- 
sibly Dating from the Reign of Ochus or Reflecting 
Light Thereon 46 

A. The Sources 

B. The Literature 

C. Examination of the Sources 

D. Summary Result 

Appendix: Chronological Tables 83 



CHAPTER I 

A HISTORICAL SURVEY. ACHAEMENES TO CYRUS. PERSIAN 
AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY 550-331 B. C 

A. LITERATURE 

Geo. Grote History of Greece, 18544, Geo. Rawlinson History 
of Herodotus I-IV, 1875. F. Justi Geschichte des altenPersiens, 1879. 
F. Spiegel Die alt-persischen Keilinschriften, I88I^ A. Wiedemann 
Aegyptische Geschichte II, 1884. Th. Noldeke Aufsdtze zur per- 
sischen Geschichte, 1887, the best treatment of the subject; the same 
appeared in a less complete form in Enc. Brit. Article "Persia," 
1875. E. Meyer Die Entstehung des Judentums, 1896. E. Meyer 
Geschichte des Altertums I-V, 1884, 1893, 1901, 1901, 1902. C. P. 
Tiele, Article "Persia" in E. B. Ill, 1902. E. Schrader Die Keilin- 
schriften und das Alte Testament, 1883% 3. Auflage neubearbeitet 
von H. Zimmern und H. Winckler, 1903. 

Of the Greek and Latin Sources the following contain valuable 
information: Herodotus, ca. 555-ca. 424. Xenophon, ca. 430- 
cfl. 354. Ktesias, between 500 and 400. Isocrates, 436-338. Ephoros 
Cumae, born ca. 408. Demosthenes, 385-322. Strabo, born 
ca. 63. Diodorus Siculus, between 49 b. c. and 14 a. d. Josephus, 
ca. 37 A. D.-ca. 100. Plutarch, ca. 46-ca. 120. Arrian, born ca. 100. 
C. Julius Solinus, ca. 230. Eusebius, ca. 265-340. Paulus Orosius, 
toward the close of the fourth century. Cf . the sources under chap. ii. 

B. FROM ACHAEMENES TO CYRUS 

The Achaemenides were a royal family whose ancient home was 
in the city of Ansan, probably near the later family seat Pas- 
argadae in Persis, or identical with it. The ancestor of the entire 
family was Achaemenes (Hakhamanis) who was perhaps not a 
historical personage, but a heros eponymus. UnHke the early oriental 
nations the Persians were not Semites but Aryans who belonged to 
the Indo-European races, as did all the Iranians. To the Aryan 



2 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

race belonged also the Achaemenides.' As early as 730 b. c, Teispis, 
the first leader, flourished in Ansan. Following him in direct Uneage 
were Cambyses, Cyrus, Teispis II, Cyrus II, and Cambyses II, 
before the beginning of the Persian empire. 

The history of Persia begins with the downfall of the Median 
empire. This empire began to rise when the shadows began to fall 
upon Assyria. About the time when Assurbanipal of Assyria sub- 
jugated Babylonia, the Median tribes, wishing to cease their quarrels 
and to unite against a common foe, chose Deioces as their first 
king. But the real founder of the empire was his successor, Phraortes, 
647-625. Through him the empire was enlarged. Persia was 
brought under his power, and afterward, little by little, large portions 
of Asia. Phraortes himself fell in a campaign against Assyria. 
Under his son and successor, Cyaxares, 624-585, the empire reached 
its highest power. Nineveh was besieged, but, by reason of an 
invasion by the Scythians, Cyaxares was called home. These 
Scythians, also Aryans, were conquered and afterward joined his 
army. With the aid of Babylon the siege of Nineveh was renewed, 
the proud capital taken, 606, and the empire, once the arbitrary ruler 
of the world, wiped entirely from the earth. Cyaxares was already 
master of Armenia and Cappadocia when he began the war with 
Lydia. Five years of fruitless conflict with that rival empire finally 
resulted in a treaty of peace after the battle of Halys, May 28, 585, 
a peace effected through Syennesis of CeUcia and Nebuchadrezzar 
of Babylonia as arbiters. 

Under Astyages, the last Median king, 584-550, probably a 
survivor of the Scythian tribes,^ the empire gradually approached its 
close. Compared with Assyria before and Persia after, the Median 
empire was rather insignificant, but it was the first attempt of an 
Aryan people to found a great and conquering empire. Unable to 
conquer Lydia and obHged to recognize the mighty power of Nabopo- 
lassar, it nevertheless gave the death blow to Assyria. It liberated 
Ir^n from Semitic suzerainty and united the quarreling tribes under 
a central power and so laid the foundation and paved the way for 
the Persian empire. 

1 Behistun Inscription i. ii. 

2 According to Justi, Astyages was a son of Cyaxares Gesch. des alten Persiens 13. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 3 

C. PERSIAN AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, 550-331 B. C/ 

The Persians under Cyrus (Kiirus) , king of Ansan, revolted against 
Astyages, who is said to have been an extravagant and fierce ruler, so 
that his own subjects rejoiced over the rise of Cyrus. One of his 
own officials, Harpagus, betrayed him into the hands of Cyrus. When 
Astyages and his capital Ecbatana were conquered, Media and 
Persia changed places. The Medo-Persian empire became the 
Perso-Median in the year 550 b. c. Cyrus had already been king 
of Persia nine years before the beginning of the empire. Now he 
became "the great king" of a new empire, 550-529.^ His first effort 
was to subdue the lands which had belonged to the Median empire. 
This he accomplished in three years. The next step was to conquer 
the powerful and wealthy king Croesus of Lydia, who ruled over 
nearly the whole western half of Asia Minor. Croesus sought the 
help of Greece, Egypt, and Babylonia. The Delphic oracle gave a 
favorable reply. Croesus decided to postpone the attack on the 
advancing Persians until spring. This was his mistake, for already, 
in the winter, Cyrus proceeded into Lydia and speedily took Sardis, 
the capital. Croesus was spared, but the Lydian empire had become 
a Persian province, 547-546. The Lydians made no attempt ever 
afterward to shake off the Persian yoke. The Greek cities of western 
Asia Minor were soon brought into subjection through Harpagus 
and other Persian leaders. 

Babylonia anticipated danger in case the balance of power between 
the East and the West should be broken. Consequently Nebuchad- 
rezzar built great fortifications, a double wall around the city and the 
Median wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates, besides numerous 
canals. This made Babylon secure under Nebuchadrezzar, but 
his successors were not his equals in power. The last of the kings, 
Nabunaid, 559-539, brought the ill-will of his subjects upon himself 
through the neglect of the worship of Marduk and the introduction 
of foreign gods. Cyrus was still without the true capital of Asia, 
Babylon, on which his eye was fixed. He could not think of breaking 
through the fortifications on the north, so he approached on the side 
of the Tigris. The Babylonian army, under the command of Bel- 

1 Cf. Noldeke Aujsatze zur persischen Geschichte 14-85. 

2 For the dates of the Persian rulers Noldeke op. cit. is followed. 



4 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

shazzar (Bel-sar-usur) met Cyrus but was defeated near Opis, and 
again as often as it rallied. The north Babylonians had revolted 
against their king and Sippar opened its gates to the enemy. Babylon 
fell into the hands of Cyrus without resistance in 538. The new 
king entered the city to the great joy of all classes, but was especially 
welcomed by the priesthood and the nobles who looked upon him 
as a liberator. Belshazzar was probably slain by Gobryas^ the 
governor of Gutium, and Nabunaid was taken captive. All the 
territory subject to Babylonia seems to have submitted to the rule 
of the Persians without resistance. 

Syria also, as far as the borders of Egypt, and Phoenicia, with all 
her island cities, came without opposition under the Persian dominion. 
The Semitic world had become an Aryan empire. A final work 
remained for Cyrus. While Harpagus was subduing the Greek 
cities and free states and coast-lands, Cyrus himself compelled the 
settled Aryan tribes of the East, and the nomadic tribes of the North- 
east to recognize the new empire. The Persian dominion now ex- 
tended from the Indus to the blue waters of the Aegean. In a battle 
with a savage tribe of the northeast, probably the Massagatae, Cyrus 
met his death in 529. His body was probably rescued and brought 
to Pasargadae, where a tomb erected by his son Cambyses marks his 
burial-place. It is possible, however, that this is not his actual 
burial-place, but merely a mausoleum erected in his honor, in the 
great king's favorite capital. 

The captive Jews in Babylonia had placed great hopes in Cyrus 
for their future hberation. Through him their God Jahwe would set 
them free, punish their oppressors, and restore Jerusalem. This 
was the message of their prophet Deutero-Isaiah.^ Disappointment 
may have followed this expectation, for the hopes excited by this 
prophet do not appear to have been reahzed at once. On the cylinder 
(11. 30 f.) Cyrus says that he returned to their homes the gods of a 
great many towns, brought together the inhabitants, and restored 
both temple and dwelling-places. Whether this extended beyond 
the immediate neighborhood of Babylon may rightly be questioned. 
Of the Jews " comparatively few availed themselves of tliis permission, 
but these few formed the starting-point of a development which has 

J Annals, 3.22 f. * isa., chaps. 40-55. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 



been of infinite importance for the history of the world." ^ Yet " the 
importance of Cyrus for Israel lies less in anything he actually did 
than in the great expectations which he excited, expectations which 
in their turn exercised a great influence on the ideas ultimately formed 
by the Jews as to the earlier stages of their restoration after the mis- 
fortunes of the exile."^ 

In his personality Cyrus is amiable both in history and in legend. 
He is the simple leader and king, tolerant in his dealings with his 
subjects, and mild in his government of the empire, granting his 
subjects a sort of self-government. The empire of Cyrus was a world 
of tolerance. He certainly was a remarkable man and truly a great 
king. And yet he left the empire in an unorganized condition. The 
treasures of Ecbatana, Sardis, and Babylon became the property of 
the king and not of the empire. The great contribution of Cyrus to 
his time was the laying of a foundation for a better empire in that 
he broke with the hated Assyro-Babylonian system of rigid and 
arbitrary rule. It was left to his successors to establish the empire 
on this broad foundation. 

Cyrus left two sons, Bardiya and Cambyses, whose mother was 
Kassandana, also of Achaemenian descent. Cambyses (Kambudsija) 
succeeded his father on the throne, 529-522. The empire of Cyrus 
was capable of expansion. On the frontier was Egypt whose wealth 
was alluring and which was a menace to the empire. Just at this 
time occurred the death of Amasis, and his successor on the throne 
was the weak king Psammetich III. This was Persia's opportunity 
and Cambyses seized it. He spent the first four years of his reign in 
preparation for an expedition against Egypt. Before leaving Persia 
he secretly killed his brother Bardiya in order to avoid a revolt at 
home during his absence. The Greeks of Asia Minor, the Cyprians, 
and the Phoenicians furnished a large fleet under the command of 
Phanes and Halicarnassus formerly in the service of the Egyptians. 
Cambyses at the head of an army, after a single battle at Pelusium, 
entered Egypt in the spring of 525, and soon was lord of the whole 
country from Memphis to Kush. The neighboring Libyans and the 
Greek cities of Cyrene and Barca readily submitted. Even the 
Soudan and parts of Kush were added to the conquered territory. 

I Noldeke op. cit. 23. ^ C. P. Tiele Art. "Cyrus" in E. B. I. 982. 



6 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Cambyses appears to have been moody and hateful in impassioned 
moments. His action in Egypt was, to say the least, unwise and 
impoHtic. He burned the mummy of the late king Amasis, and with 
his own hand inflicted a mortal wound on the sacred Apis at Memphis. 
Consequently he was unpopular in Egypt as well as at home. Sud- 
denly the news of a rebellion at home spread through the empire. 
Gaumata (pseudo-Smerdis) pretended to be the king's brother 
Bardiya and made claims to the throne. The people, displeased 
with the long absence of Cambyses, were the more ready to accept 
the pretender. Cambyses was on his return when he learned of the 
terrible insurrection. At Hamath, in northern Syria, he put an end 
to his life in 522. Gaumata was accepted by the people, but not by 
the leading famiHes who knew him to be an impostor. 

Hystaspis, the father of Darius, was the real heir to the throne, 
but he lacked courage to rise against the pseudo-Smerdis. A con- 
spiracy of seven representative men of illustrious families was formed 
to murder the impostor. Darius was undoubtedly the leader of this 
heptad from the beginning. The conspiracy was completely suc- 
cessful. Guamata was slain in a fortress near Ecbatana and Darius 
(Daryavaus) I became king of the Persian empire, 521-485. It only 
remained for him to find recognition among the Persian people who 
had accepted Gaumata. He married Attossa, daughter of Cyrus, who 
had already been married to her brother Cambyses and to the pseudo- 
Smerdis. This alone brought him favor with the people. He also 
restored the temple which Gaumata had destroyed and set aright 
everything else the impostor had altered. 

All over the empire there were rebellions which had to be quelled. 
Western Asia alone remained quiet. First the rebellion in Lydia 
was quieted and then that in Babylonia where Nebuchadrezzar, a 
descendant of Nabunaid, had arisen to claim the throne. Even in 
Persia another pseudo-Smerdis appeared in the absence of Darius. 
In Media Phraortes, a real or a pretending descendant of the old 
Median royalty, became king and was recognized by the Parthians 
and Hyrkanians. In Susiana Imani arose as king. Another Nebuch- 
adrezzar arose in Babylonia. The ruling power of Darius, his great 
energy and circumspect enabled him speedily to conquer all these 
difficulties. As early as 519 all these insurrections were suppressed 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 7 

SO that they were not to be feared again during his reign. Darius 
commemorated this event by an inscription in word and picture in 
the stone cHff at Behistun. 

Darius was now free to devote his efforts to the inner establish- 
ment of the empire. In this work he manifested his true greatness 
and rendered his chief service to the world. Darius was not so great 
a general as Cyrus, but he was a greater king. He was the first 
statesman of Asia. The rulers of the older empires, Assyria and 
Chaldaea, were unlimited despots, gods upon the earth. ^ Darius 
was the most remarkable king of the dynasty of all the native kings 
of Iran, as energetic as he was prudent.^ He set the standard for the 
empire until the days of Alexander the Great. He delegated power 
to governors and satraps who were free almost like kings, but he kept 
the reins in the hands of the central power. To further the organiza- 
tion he constructed a network of highways and instituted a regular 
system of posts. In this way the king could have his "eyes" and 
"ears," i. e., his royal commissioners and his royal secretaries, in each 
of the twenty provinces, into which the empire was divided. He 
substituted a new and better system of coinage for that of the Lydians, 
and established a regular system of taxes to the great benefit of the 
state. Such a centralized government was excellent as long as there 
was a strong and energetic man at the center. As soon as this was 
missing it gave equally great opportunity for satraps and governors 
to rise as kings. Political organization in Asia reached its greatest 
height under Darius. It was the most satisfactory ever devised by 
Orientals. 

Along with the political development followed the religious. 
Zoroastrianism^ had already found favorable conditions for spreading 
over Persia during the liberal reign of Cyrus. The tolerance of 
Darius granting to all freedom of language, customs, and reUgion, 
was especially favorable for its spread and development. It is not 
a mere accident that during this statesman's reign the Jewish com- 
munity at Jerusalem revived again, partly indeed through the in- 
spiration furnished by returned exiles, but more largely through the 
energy of the people of Palestine roused up through the prophets 

1 Justi op. cit. 56. 3 K. Geldner Art. "Zoroastrianism" in E. B. IV. § 6. 

2 Noldeke op. cit. 41. 



8 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Haggai and Zechariah, which resulted in the rebuilding of the temple, 
519-516.^ 

An organized empire with such a system of government, paralleled 
by its religious development, was capable of still greater expansion. 
Cyrus had conquered Lydia and Babylonia. Cambyses added 
Egypt. Darius organized the whole into one vast empire. But 
this was not enough. He had desires to foUow the example of his 
predecessors. India, though probably only a portion of the region of 
the Indus, is mentioned in the inscriptions of the palace of Persepolis 
and in the epitaph of Darius, but not in the Behistun inscription. 
From this it may be inferred that Darius added a portion of India 
to his empire. 

An expedition against the Scythians proved altogether unsuccess- 
ful, not because of their superiority over the Persians, but on account 
of physical conditions of the country with which Darius did not 
reckon sufficiently. Before setting out from Susa with an army 
of 700,000 men towards the Bosporus, Darius sent Ariamnes, satrap 
of Cappadocia, with a fleet of thirty ships, to sail to the Scythian 
coast to capture some of the Scythians. The Ionian Greeks were 
called upon to furnish a fleet of 600 ships. The campaign was 
carried on on a large scale and was continued far inland but with no 
results. 

The Persians were absorbed in schemes of a universal empire. 
There was one more nation at that time which had grown to such 
dimensions and stood in such close proximity to the Persian empire 
that it would naturally become a part of the empire or in time become 
a menace to it. This nation was Greece. Before continuing the 
history of Persia we must turn aside a little and take a glance at this 
rising world power, and see how through it the history of Persia was 
modified. 

A thousand years and more before Persia was known as a separate 
nation there were civilizations of a high order on the borders of the 
Aegean. Troy and Mycenae had already been succeeded by later 
civilizations. From the northern and more backward parts of the 
peninsula came Dorian migrations and supplanted in some parts, 

1 Hag., chaps, i, 2, Zech., chaps. 1-8. A later largely traditional account of 
the restoration is found in Ezra-Neh. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 9 

but in others supplemented the earlier peoples. There were two 
particular lines of development on the peninsula, one the Dorian, 
with its center at Sparta, the other the Ionian, with its center at Athens. 
No sooner were these centers formed than began the expansion and 
colonization in the neighboring states of Greece, the islands of the 
Aegean, and the coast of Asia Minor, where twelve cities were founded 
of which Miletus was the most important. This whole district took 
the name of Ionia. The process of colonization continued to the 
islands and borders of the Mediterranean, and through the Bosporus 
to the shores of the Euxine. At the centers kings made room for 
oligarchies, and these in turn were overthrown by tyrants, who 
finally gave place to democracies. In military and political organiza- 
tion Sparta excelled. In Athens, on the other hand, art and literature, 
science and philosophy reached their fullest expression, particularly 
under the favorable conditions during the prosperous reign of 
Lycurgus. 

It was not till about the year 500 that the Greek and oriental 
civilizations came into close touch with each other, and it is here 
where the interest of Persian history in Greece begins. Persia was 
at this time a mighty organized empire, while Greece consisted of a 
large number of disunited cities and small states. In this Hellenic 
world there were three centers : Greece, the Asiatic coast, and Sicily. 
To the close of the sixth century the Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor 
excelled the others in culture. As early as 560, when Croesus became 
king of Lydia, they were subdued by that monarch. When Cyrus 
conquered Lydia in 547 the Greek cities, after some resistance, became 
a part of the empire and so lost their leadership among the Greeks. 
In the year 500, possessed by a love of liberty, these lonians revolted 
against Persia. Reinforced by ships from Athens and Eretria they 
made an attack upon Sardis. The city was taken but the citadel 
withstood the attack. The Greeks were driven back and defeated at 
Ephesus. The Persians now came with a great fleet to Cyprus, which 
had joined the lonians. The Persians were met and defeated by the 
lonians at sea off Salamis in Cyprus, but beat them in turn on land. 
Cyprus, after being free only one year, came under Persian power 
again. A decisive struggle was concentrated about Miletus, up to 
that time by far the most important of all the Greek cities in Asia. A 



lO ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

complete overthrow was the result after a long defense on land and 
on sea. 

Immediately after the Ionian revolt Darius began vast prepara- 
tions for the invasion of Greece. A great army under Mardonius, 
the king's son-in-law, was gathered at the Hellespont. A large fleet 
was equipped to accompany the army with supplies. In 492 the 
army set out but suffered constant attacks by savage Thracian tribes, 
and the fleet was dashed to pieces by a storm near the rocky prom- 
ontory off Mount Athos. As a result Mardonius was forced to 
retreat into Asia. Two years later a second expedition was made 
against Greece and on a larger scale. The command was entrusted 
to the Median Datis and the younger Artaphernes. They set out 
in the spring of 490 direct from Euboea. Naxos was taken and 
Eretria destroyed. The Athenians and Plataeans, under Miltiades, 
met the Persians at Marathon and utterly defeated them. This was 
the first great victory over the Persians in the open field. By this 
victory Athens rendered immortal service to Europe and the cause 
of civiUzation. For the Greeks themselves the victory proved an 
inspiration for later daring enterprise. Darius ordered preparations 
for a new expedition to wipe out the disgrace of Marathon, but did 
not live to carry out his plans. 

In Egypt Darius promoted material well-being. By building 
a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea he increased faciHties for com 
merce. He had early offered a reward for the finding of a new Apis 
to take the place of the one killed by Cambyses. This won him the 
favor of his subjects. The new Apis lived till the thirty-first year 
of Darius. The prudent rule of the Persian king gave him a place 
among six great lawgivers in the legal code of the Egyptians.^ But 
the old hatred against the Persians rose again and in the last years 
of Darius Egypt was in a state of revolt against the empire. 

After the death of Darius his son Xerxes (Chsajirsa) I, through 
the influence of his mother Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, succeeded 
him on the throne, 485-464. He was in all points inferior to Darius. 
With him begins a series of weak and unworthy kings, and a conse- 
quent decline of the empire held together only by the solid foundation 
which Darius had given it. Unfortunately the sources for the Persian 

I Justi op. cit. 55. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY II 

history after Darius are few. The inscriptions are fewer than before 
and give less of the events of the reigns of kings. Herodotus closes 
his account with the battle of Plataea, so that we are thrown back 
upon the fragmentary accounts especially of Greek writers. "What 
we gather from classic writers as to the affairs of the Persian court 
is a sad history of alternate weakness and cruelty, corruption, murders, 
intrigues and broken faith. "^ 

Xerxes suppressed the revolt of Egypt which had broken out during 
the last years of his father Darius, and laid a much harder yoke 
upon them. The king's own brother Achaemenes became satrap 
of the country. In Babylon the Persian satrap Zopyrus was mur- 
dered, but his son Megabyzus suppressed the revolt. 

The most important undertaking of Xerxes was the conquest of 
Greece. Darius had resolved to wipe out the stain of Marathon, 
but was kept from it through frequent revolts in the empire and his 
death. Xerxes now decided to carry out his predecessor's resolve. 
Extensive preparations were made and the king himself set out to 
Sardis, the first rendezvous. SuppHes were collected and the Helles- 
pont bridged. In the spring of 480 Xerxes, with an army of at least 
a million soldiers, besides attendants, and accompanied by a fleet of 
1,200 ships, set out on the expedition. Greece was forced into hurried 
preparation and a greater unity than before existed among the 
different states. The one great change in Greece since the victory 
of Marathon that was against Xerxes was the building of a great 
fleet through the efforts of Themistocles. Athens had become, during 
the last few years, the greatest naval power in Hellas. Xerxes entered 
Greece without a blow. The Thessalian cities joined the invaders 
with their powerful cavalry. The Greeks decided to make a stand 
at Thermopylae, but in vain, for the Persian army forced their way, 
after a three days' battle over the dead bodies of Leonidas and his 
faithful three hundred. At Pelusium four hundred Persian ships 
were wrecked in a storm and the rest were checked by the Greeks 
in a sternly contested conflict. Xerxes now advanced on Athens and 
was joined by nearly all the states of central Greece. The city was 
abandoned and the Athenians took refuge on their fleet. Themisto- 
cles, delaying the retreat of the fleet at Salamis, sent a treacherous 

I C. P. Tide Art. "Persia" in E. B. III. 3,674. 



12 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

message to Xerxes pretending friendship, notifying him of the weak- 
ness and dissension of the Greeks. Xerxes accepted the treacherous 
advice to block the straits in order to prevent their escape. The only- 
thing to do now was to fight. The Persian fleet more than doubled 
the Greek wliich consisted of 378 ships. A conflict lasting from 
dawn till night resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Greeks. 

Xerxes, boastfully and vaingloriously watching the struggle from 
the shore, now cowardly and effeminately resolved to return to Asia in- 
stead of pressing farther inland. He left the land-forces under 
Mardonius who withdrew to Thessaly to spend the winter. Athens 
was burned a second time and Attica laid waste. The next spring 
the final contest was fought near Plataea, 479, where the Persian 
army of nearly 300,000 was almost completely destroyed by the 
Greek force of about one-third that number. This was the turning- 
point of Persian history. The Persians were thrown back on the 
defensive. The defeat was so complete that no hostile Persian dared 
ever set foot on European Greece again. Oriental centralized 
despotism was crushed by the rising freedom and repubhcan indi- 
vidualism. The fall of Persia resulted in the ripening of Greek art 
and thought. 

Xerxes retreated into the depths of Asia. The Greeks, invited 
by the Greek islanders, crossed over to the Asiatic coast and at Mycale, 
near Miletus, the rest of the Persian fleet was annihilated. All the 
islands of the Aegean were permanently wrested from the Persians 
and the hberation of the Asiatic coast was begun. This defeat in 
Greece worked disadvantageously in the empire at home. In the 
very heart of the empire, as well as in the distant frontier, tribes were 
regaining their independence. More dangerous for the empire was 
the confidence the victory of the Greeks put into their minds to turn 
the spear and to enter into the enemy's own home. It was left for 
Alexander the Great to do this. Xerxes was assassinated by Arta- 
banus, captain of the body-guard. His younger brother Artaxerxes, 
in league with the murderer, put to death his older brother Darius, 
who had a better title to the throne. Artabanus was soon afterwards 
put out of the way by Artaxerxes,' who thereby made himself secure 
for the throne. 

I Cf. Justi op. cit. 126 for another view. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 3 

Artaxerxes (Artachsathra) I, surnamed Longimanus (Ma/cpo'xeip) 
by the Greeks, became king in his father's stead, 464-424. Im- 
mediately after his accession he had to quiet the revolt of the Bactrians 
which may have been instigated by the king's older brother Hystaspis, 
then satrap of Bactria. After two battles they were brought to 
subjection. 

In Egypt a second revolt broke out, this time through Inams, son 
of Psammetich, a Libyan prince who was proclaimed king over all 
Egypt. He had stirred up a revolt against the satrap Achaemenes 
who fell in battle. Inarus summoned aid from Athens. The Per- 
sians in turn sought help from Sparta but failed. The Persians then 
dispatched a large army from Syria, under Megabyzus, who was at 
that time satrap of Syria. After hard fighting the Athenians in Egypt 
were wiped out, and Inarus was captured and crucified. Upon this fol- 
lowed a treaty of peace between Persia and Athens. The Persians 
agreed to send no ships of war into Greek waters and the Athenians 
in turn renounced all rights in the eastern seas. 

Meanwhile the jealousy between Athens and Sparta increased and 
resuhed in the Peloponnesian war, 431-404. By reason of this war 
Persia was secure from her greatest foe, Athens. During the early 
years of war there was repeated communication between Sparta and 
Persia. The Spartans wanted the assistance of Persia in the war, 
but were not skilful in obtaining it, and the Persians were too ignorant 
and selfish to grant it. Athens also sought help from Persia but 
naturally in vain. 

Artaxerxes was not a bad but a weak man, governed by courtiers 
and women. His mother Amestris and her daughter Amytes, wife of 
Megabyzus, both cruel and dissolute women, exercised a controUing 
influence on him. He rendered his chief service to the empire in 
replenishing the finances which were exhausted during the wars of 
Xerxes, and in restoring order throughout his empire. 

Within his reign fall the activity of the prophet Malachi, the 
rebuilding of the wall through the efforts of Nehemiah, and the 
introduction of the law through Ezra. The memoirs of Nehemiah 
and of Ezra are compositions that were written at this time. Signifi- 
cant is the quarrel of Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, with the Persian 
court, a quarrel which lasted several years and was brought to a close 



14 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

only after a severe conflict. In the treaty of peace Megabyzus was 
granted full pardon. "It is not improbable that this war was the 
occasion of the destruction of the walls and gates of Jerusalem 
lamented by Nehemiah."^ 

After the long reign of Artaxerxes followed two sudden changes 
on the throne. The only one of his eighteen sons eligible, Xerxes II, 
the son of Damaspia, was murdered by his half-brother Sogdianus, 
the son of the Babylonian Alogune, forty-five days after his accession. 
He in turn was overthrown by his brother Ochus, satrap of Hyrkania, 
after a reign of six and a half months, and in violation of solemn oaths 
was put to death. Ochus assumed the name of Darius II, 423-404. 
The Greeks called him Nothus (Bastard). He left the supreme power 
in the hands of his sister and consort Parysatis, the prompter of all 
his acts and all his crimes. The empire in the hands of a weak ruler 
became the scene of uncontrollable rebellions. In Syria and in Asia 
Minor there were repeated revolts. Soon after 410 Egypt was lost 
to the Persians for a period of over sixty years. The throne of 
Phraortes was again estabhshed with Amyrtaeus as the first inde- 
pendent king. For all this time the Persians were unable to reduce 
the unwarlike Egyptians, a fact which shows the weakness of the 
Persians rather than the strength of the Egyptians who were fre- 
quently divided by internal strife. 

In Greece the Peloponnesian war was hastened to a close by a 
dreadful catastrophe in Sicily, where two hundred perfectly equipped 
ships and over 4,000 men were pitilessly sacrificed through the miser- 
able generalship of their leader Micias in 413. This gave the Persians 
hope to regain the seacoast. At once their satraps, both the untrust- 
worthy Tissaphernes of Sardis and his rival, Pharnabazus of Helles- 
pontine Phrygia, appeared upon the coast of the Aegean. The 
Spartans sought the aid of the Persians and offered to betray the 
Asiatic Greeks into their hands. The aid thus received enabled 
Sparta to carry on the war with Athens, a war which was hastening 
to a close. Cyrus, the younger son of Darius II, was made satrap 
of Lydia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia, and commander-in-chief of all 
the troops in Asia Minor, while the treacherous Tissaphernes retained 
only the seacoast. Cyrus had a burning desire to avenge the defeats 

I Noldeke op. cit. 56. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 5 

the Persians suffered from the Athenians. Hence he sought to ally 
himself closely with Sparta. Just at this time the command fell to 
the energetic unscrupulous Lysander. These two men were the 
ruin of Athens. Cyrus furnished the gold, Lysander did the work. 
In 405 her last fleet was captured at Aegospotami. Lysander in cold 
blood put to death the 4,000 Athenian citizens among the captives. 
In the following year the proud city surrendered to the mercy of her 
enemies and promised to follow Sparta in peace and war. The fall 
of Athens was at the same time the beginning of the fall of Hellas. 

About the time of the peace between Athens and Sparta, Darius 
II died. His older son, Arsicas, ascended the throne as Artaxerxes 
II, later known as Mnemon (Thinker), 404-358. The younger son, 
Cyrus, was the abler and more powerful, far more worthy of the throne 
than his brother, and at the same time the favorite of his mother 
Parysatis. When Darius II was upon his death-bed Cyrus was 
summoned to his side, yet Artaxerxes was made king. Cyrus after- 
ward made an attempt to seize the throne, but too late. He was 
arrested, and only at the request of Parysatis was he released and 
sent back to his satrapy. Within himself he was resolved to occupy 
his father's throne. He collected under false pretext an army of 
over 10,000 Greeks and 100,000 Persians, and in 401 set out in 
face of the greatest difficulties with the purpose of seizing the throne. 
His effort was a failure and he was slain in the battle of Cunaxa 
near Babylon. The leaders of his army perished through cruel and 
cowardly treachery. The 10,000 Greeks chose new generals and 
retreated through wild and mountainous regions to the Greek dis- 
tricts on the Euxine, suffering untold hardships both from the severe 
climate and the barbarous people.^ The expedition revealed to the 
Greeks the weakness of the Persian empire, the cowardice of its 
rulers, and the great tracts of land regarded as royal territory but 
which were altogether independent. All this was remembered till 
the days of Alexander. 

Sparta had rendered assistance to Cyrus and thus incurred the 
hatred of Persia. Agesilaus was burning with the ambition of freeing 
the Asiatic Greeks who, a little before, had been abandoned to Persia. 
This resulted in war between Sparta and Persia. In 396 Agesilaus 

1 Xen. Anabasis i-vii. 



l6 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

invaded Asia Minor with a large army. This in turn raised new 
enemies for Sparta in Greece, particularly Thebes and Corinth, who 
did not share equally in the Spartan gains in the victory over Athens. 
These cities now joined Athens and Argos against Sparta and Persia, 
who suppHed the alHes with gold. Agesilaus was recalled in 394. 
When he reached the frontier of Boeotia he heard the dread tidings 
that Conon, in command of a Phoenician fleet, had completely des- 
troyed the Spartan naval power at Cnidus. With this the Spartan 
authority in the Aegean vanished at once. Their sovereignty over 
the seas, after lasting ten years, was forever gone. Athens was again 
raised to the place of one of the great powers, and Sparta fell back 
into her former position of one state among many. 

After a few more years of indecisive war, Sparta sought peace with 
Persia. In 387 the two powers invited all the Greek states through 
their ambassadors, Antalcidas and Teribazus, to send deputies to 
Sardis, where the Persian king dictated the term of peace as follows: 

King Artaxerxes deems it just that the cities in Asia, with the islands of 
Clazomense and Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic cities, 
both great and small, he will leave independent, save Lemnos, Imbros, and 
Scyros, which three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the parties 
not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, together with those who share my views 
(the Spartans), will war against the offenders by land and sea.' 

This peace was a great gain to the Spartans, for they gave up 
nothing which they still possessed, and gained a greater power over 
the mainland than they had before, since Greece was divided into 
many petty httle states. The only gain to Persia was a firm hold on 
the seacoast. It was known that the Persian empire was now much 
weaker than when peace was concluded with Athens and that it was 
now only maintained by Greek mercenaries. Sixteen years later, 
at the battle of Leuctra, 371, Sparta was overthrown and Thebes rose 
to supremacy under Phihp of Macedon, to fall again at his death. 

Another enemy rose up against Persia in the west. Euagoras of 
Salamis had become the almost independent lord of Cyprus. Athens 
was obhged to support him for the services of Conon in her behalf 
against Sparta. Although formally leagued with Persia against 
Sparta, Persia made great efforts to reduce him to subjection, but 

I Xen. Hellenica v. i. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 7 

did not succeed for ten years and then only in part. Euagoras was 
murdered but his descendants continued to be princes of Cyprian 
towns. 

On the borders of the Caspian Sea the Kadusians, who perhaps 
were never completely subdued, kept annoying the king's territory. 
Artaxerxes made a disastrous campaign against them from which 
he escaped with his life only with great difficulty. There was re- 
peated warring with Egypt also without accomplishing anything. 
The last part of the reign of Artaxerxes II was filled with revolts of 
the satraps of Asia Minor, which must have weakened the imperial 
power immensely in the western provinces and certainly prepared 
the way for Macedonia. 

In Egypt Tachos now occupied the throne. In 361 he actually 
assumed the offensive against Persia. The Spartans sent them aid, 
for they were bitterly enraged against Persia on account of her recog- 
nition of the independence of Messinia. But when Tachos was 
engaged in Phoenicia his nephew Nectanebus set himself up as rival 
king. This obliged Tachos to take refuge with the Persians. This 
would have been an excellent opportunity for the Persians to subdue 
Egypt again but they made no effort in that direction. 

Artaxerxes II was a mild and friendly monarch, but a man without 
energy. He suffered many misfortunes which a man of greater 
strength could have prevented. "The contempt for his brother 
which Cyrus exhibited was perfectly justified: under the effeminate 
king the empire gradually fell to pieces."^ Not the energy of Artaxer- 
xes but the dissensions among his enemies kept the empire from the 
fate which awaited it some twenty years later. With the exception 
of Egypt the empire remained, in name at least, the Persian empire. 
After having reigned forty-five or forty-six years Artaxerxes died. 
His oldest son Darius had been declared by his father as his successor. 
But before his father's death Darius incurred his ill-will. Atossa, 
wife as well as daughter of Artaxerxes, espoused the interests of 
Ochus, a younger son. Darius, through the discontented courtier 
Teribazus, plotted to assassinate his father. He failed in his attempt 
and both he and Teribazus were put to death. This improved the 
chances of Ochus, but there were still two older brothers in the way, 

I Noldeke op. cit. 75. 



1 8 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Arsanes and Ariaspes. Both of these Ochus had removed, one by- 
treacherous poisoning, the other by assassination, so that he now- 
stood next in order. 

After Artaxerxes II died, Ochus (Vakuka) became king under the 
name of Artaxerxes III, 358-338. As king he manifested the same 
sanguinary dispositions as those by -which he placed himself on the 
throne. At the very beginning of his reign he massacred a number 
of his nearest relatives, among them his t-wo younger brothers and 
his sister Ocha, in order to secure himself on the throne. Such 
executions -were common to oriental despots. Even Alexander the 
Great put several near relatives to death after ascending the throne. 
For a -while the -whole empire seemed to be in a state of dissolution. 
A century and a quarter had passed since the days of Darius I, 
and this -was a period of gradual vireakening and decay of the empire. 
The heritage of Ochus was anything but desirable. Artabazus, 
satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, deserted to the court of PhiHp of 
Macedonia, and with him the Rhodian Memnon, his brother-in-law. 
Orontes also became an enemy of the king and entered into alli- 
ance with the Athenians. In Egypt the war continued. Phoenicia, 
previously so trustworthy, also revolted, and with it Cyprus. Judea 
likewise was rebellious against Persia. It required all the energy 
of the cruel king to bring these revolting countries into subjection 
again. In this task, however, he proved himself efficient. 

After the battle at Leuctra, 371, Thebes was at the head of Greece. 
This lasted for a short time only, for on the north a new nation was 
forming itself which was destined by reason of its able kings to rise 
to that primacy for which Sparta, Athens, and Thebes in turn had 
vainly striven, A consolidated monarchy came into conflict with 
divided and mutually jealous states. This country was Macedonia, 
with the ambitious and powerful Phihp II at its head. Demosthenes 
tried in vain to stir up Greece against the inroads of Philip. The 
monarch invaded Greece with a powerful army, and both Athens and 
Thebes were crushed at the battle of Chaeronea, 338. This left 
PhiHp master of Greece. The history of Hellas was ended. All 
this was a preparation on a large scale for the final conquest and 
overthrow of Persia through the son and successor of Philip, only 
a few years later. 



HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 9 

It appears that Ochus was keen enough to see the danger of his 
empire through Philip, and that he entered into negotiations with 
Athens and rendered her assistance. There are evidences also that 
Philip entered into a treaty with Ochus. This may have been in 
good faith on the part of Persia, but not so with Phihp, who simply 
wanted time enough to conquer Greece before invading Persia. 
-By his great energy Ochus smothered every revolt and really re- 
stored for the time the Persian supremacy. He was murdered by 
Bagoas, an Egyptian eunuch, and his youngest son Arses was placed 
on the throne.^ 

Of the reign of Arses, 338-335, little is known. In the spring of 
336 a Macedonian army for the first time crossed over into Asia 
under the command of Parmenio, but little or nothing was accom- 
plished, for Parmenio was recalled when in the same year Philip was 
assassinated. Memnon, in command in Asia Minor, probably soon 
won back all the Macedonian conquests. When Arses tried to get 
rid of his patron, Bagoas poisoned him and gave the crown to Darius, 
the great-grandson of Darius II. 

Darius III, Codomannus, 335-331, was about forty-five years of 
age when he was placed on the throne. Bagoas could not have made 
a worse choice. He had hoped to rule Darius, but being unable to 
do so he prepared the poison cup for him. The king noticing his 
intention compelled Bagoas to drink the cup. Unlike Ochus, Darius 
was an incapable despot whom Alexander could easily conquer. He 
was "a king no better than Xerxes, valiant perhaps in ordinary 
fights but quickly confused in great emergencies, and in no wise 
equal to the gigantic task imposed on his weak shoulders."^ 

Philip of Macedon was succeeded on the throne by his son Alex- 
ander, then only twenty years old. He at once showed himself both 
statesman and general, to the great surprise of his subjects. The 
revolts all over the empire were quickly suppressed. Thebes was 
razed to the ground because of revolt. The other cities were fright- 
ened into submission. Early in the spring of 334 he crossed the 
Hellespont with 35,000 disciplined troops. He swept everything 
before him with wonderful rapidity. At the Granicus, a small 

I For a full treatment of the reign of Ochus vide chap, ii, pp. 26 f . 
, 2 C. P. Tiele Art. "Persia" in E. B. III. 3,674. 



20 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

stream in the Troad, the Persians, under the leadership of the satraps 
of Asia Minor, attempted to check his advance, but their large army 
was utterly routed. This victory made Alexander master of all 
Asia Minor. The Rhodian Memnon, at this time at the head of a 
fleet that ruled the sea, purposed to recall Alexander by carrying 
war into Greece. Island after island was captured. The Greeks 
began to look to Memnon to save them from the Macedonian power. 
But just then Memnon died and his successor, Pharnabazus, was 
unable to carry out his plans, greatly to the advantage of Alexander. 

Before marching farther inland the Mediterranean coast had first 
to be made secure. Hence Alexander turned to the south. At Issus 
a Persian army of 600,000, led by Darius himself, met him in 
November in 333, and was driven back with great loss. Cyprus 
surrendered to the Macedonians. Egypt hailed Alexander as their 
dehverer. In the spring of 331, after founding the city that bears 
his name, Alexander left Egypt and marched through Syria to the 
northeast. In October of the same year he won the decided victory 
over the large Persian army, said to have numbered a million soldiers, 
at Gaugamela. Darius fled for safety to Media. The battle was 
decisive. The Persian empire was ended, and Alexander was 
temporary master of the whole east. The march was continued 
eastward and the capitals of the empire, Babylon, Susiana, Ecbatana, 
and PersepoHs, surrendered with all their enormous treasure. Darius 
was pursued and finally captured by Bessus, satrap of Bactria, and 
slain in 330. The last of the Achaemenian great kings had fallen. 

Bessus assumed the title of king as Artaxerxes IV, not altogether 
without ground, for he was a relative of Darius. After many an 
adventure he came into the power of Alexander who had him brought 
to Ecbatana to be executed. The campaign was carried far into the 
east, beyond the Indus to the mountainous regions, until Alexander 
was forced to return because his soldiers refused to advance any 
farther. During his absence Baryaxes declared himself king of 
Media and Persia, but was soon captured and executed. Alexander 
returned to Babylon which he made his capital. Europe and Asia 
had joined hands. There was one mighty world-empire subject to 
the will of one world-emperor. And this also was of short duration. 



CHAPTER II 

THE HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN, 358-338 

A. THE HISTORICAL SOURCES 

Diodorus Siculus was born in Agyrium in Sicily and lived during 
the reigns of Caesar and Augustus, 49 b. C.-14 a. d. He wrote a 
universal history in forty books, called Bi^XLod-^Ka, a work cover- 
ing a period of eleven hundred years and extending to the subjugation 
of Gaul and Britanny through Caesar. He labored forty years at 
this work, wrote without careful criticism, and often embodied un- 
digested fragments from his sources. Only Books I-V, the early 
history of Egypt, Ethiopia, Assyria, and other oriental nations, as well 
as of Greece, and Books XI-XX, 480-302, are preserved. Of other 
books fragments remain. For Book XVI, covering the reign of 
Ochus, he used the history of Ephorus composed in the fourth century, 
consequently close to or during the reign of Ochus. ^ 

Flavins Josephus was born in Jerusalem, 37 a. d., and Uved till 
after the death of Agrippa II who died in the third year of Trajan 
in the year 100. He was a descendant of John Hyrcanus, of priestly 
family, and a Pharisee. After the war of Titus against Jerusalem 
Josephus went to Rome where he wrote his four works: (i) Bellum 
Judaicum in seven books, relating the history of the siege and fall of 
Jerusalem under Titus, 66-63; (2) Antiquitates Judaicae in twenty 
books, telhng the history of the Jews from the beginning till the out- 
break of the war in 66; (3) Vita, an autobiography; and (4) Contra 
Appionem, concerning the antiquity of the Jews. His works were 
all written in Greek. ^ 

The Persian period is treated in Ant. xi. Of this book one section, 
xi. 7.1, is often quoted as giving informatian of the treatment of the 
Jews under Ochus. But this falls in the post-bibhcal period. The 
whole period from Nehemiah to Antiochus Epiphanes, 440-175, is 
filled largely with legendary material.^ Yet the passage in question 

1 Cf. Schurer Cesch. des Jiid. Volhes I. 107. 

2 Ihid. 74-106. 3 Ihid. 82. 



22 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

is generally accepted as historically reliable, in spite of Wellhausen^ 
who calls it a loose anecdote of doubtful origin with which Josephus 
seeks to fill out the gap between Nehemiah and the Maccabees. 
Marquart^ follows Wellhausen, and like Willrich,^ after him, sup- 
poses that Josephus based his information on the lost work of Jason 
of Cyrene, who, about the middle of the second century, wrote a 
history, in five books, on the Maccabaean uprising from its beginning 
till the victory of Judas over Nicanor, i6i. But if so, why should 
Jason embody it in his history if it is merely legendary ? The account 
of so significant an event could scarcely find credence without some 
historical fact back of it. 

Plutarch of Chaeronea, in Beotia, Hved from about 46-120 a. d. 
His great work is the Biographies of Illustrious Greeks and Romans 
of which about fifty are extant. Information is contained in the 
Life of Artaxerxes II and of Alexander the Great. For Artaxerxes 
his main source was the History of the Persians by Dinon of Colophon, 
of the latter half of the fourth century b. c.,^ a work which unfor- 
tunately is lost. Plutarch's diligence as a historian cannot be ques- 
tioned even if his accuracy in some points is impeached.^ 

Flavius Arrianus, a Greek of Asia Minor, born ca. 100 a. d., wrote 
the Anabasis of Alexander. This work is based on reliable sources 
such as the Royal Court-Journal, the works of Ptolemaeus, afterwards 
king of Egypt, and those of Aristobulus, who was with Alexander 
in his Asiatic campaign.^ 

Dio Cassius, born at Nicea in Bithynia ca. 150 A. d., was a man of 
pubhc career in Rome. He wrote a history of Rome about 211-229, 
consisting of eighty books. Of the first thirty-four books only small 
fragments, and of the next two books larger portions remain. Books 
xxxvii-Uv are complete. Of books Iv-xl larger portions are left, 
while of the remaining twenty only extracts of Xiphilus, who wrote in 
the eleventh century, are left.^ 

Caius Julius Solinus, a Roman writer of the third century of the 
Christian era, born ca. 230, is the author of Collectanea Rerum Memor- 

I Jiid. und Isr. Gesch. 192. 2 Philologus liv. 509. 

3 Juden und Griechen vor der Mab. Erhebung 88 f. 

4 E. Meyer Gesch. des Alt. Ill, § 6. ^ Swoboda Griechiscke Gesch. 171. 

5 Art. "Plutarch" in E. B. 7 Schurer op. cit. I. 109. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 23 

abilium in fifty-six books. His principal source was Plinius Historia 
Naturalis. The extract is chiefly of geographical contents known 
by the title " Polyhistor." The part that concerns us here is the 
reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and of Jericho, 35.4. The 
best edition is that of Th. Mommsen, 1895. What immediately 
precedes the quotation is based on Plinius v. 71, 72. The quotation 
itself Mommsen ascribes to an unknown source, and identifies 
"Hierichus" with "Machaerus" after Plinius v. 72: "Machaerus 
secunda quondam arx Judaeae ab Hierosolymis.'" It is evident, 
however, that the last part of the quotation: "et haec desivit 
Artaxerxis bello subacta," is not from Plinius. Hence it is best with 
Hoelscher to retain " Hierichus " as in Sohnus.^ 

Eusebius Pamphili, ca. 265-340 a. d., in his Chronikon preserves 
some of the writings of the Christian chronographers of the time of 
the emperors, who based their writings on those of Hellenistic chronog- 
raphers, chief of whom were Eratosthenes at the close of the third 
century, and ApoUodorus, of Athens, in the second half of the second 
century.3 Probably from Alexander Polyhistor and in the last 
analysis dating from a Jewish Hellenist. The historic trustworthi- 
ness is not to be doubted.^ 

Upon Eusebius are based the references in Paulus Orosius,^ a 
Christian priest born in Spain toward the close of the fourth century, 
in his Historia adversus Paganos in seven books. 

Also the Chronographia (EK\ojr) xpovo<ypa4>ia'i) of Georgius 
Syncellus, a Byzantian historian of the eighth century. It contains 
the history from creation to 285 a. d. It is preserved in the 
Chronikon of Eusebius. For a knowledge of the Christian chronog- 
raphers the Chronikon of Syncellus is next to Eusebius the most 
important work. It is dominated fully by the theological spirit.^ 

Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, a son of Eusebius, born ca. 

1 Solinus ed. Mommsen 154 n. 

2 Palastina in der pers. und hellen. Zeit 47. 

3 Unger Die Chronik des ApoUodorus, in Philologus xl. 602-51. 

4 Marquart op. cit. 509-10. Cf. Wachsmuth, Einl. in das Studium der alien Gesch., 
1895, 163-76. 

5 Schurer op. cit. I. 6. 

6 Cf . K. Krumbacher in Miiller's Alterlums Wissenschajt, 1891, IX. 1 18-19. 



24 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

340 in Stridor! of Dalmatia, wrote the second part of the Chronikon 
of his father in Latin and continued the same from 325-379.^ 

Justinus, sometime before the fifth century, wrote his Historiae 
Philippicae, a work in forty-four books, which he himself describes 
in his preface as a collection of the most important and interesting 
passages from the voluminous Historiae Philippicae et totius Mundi 
Origines et Terrae Situs, written in the time of Augustus by Trogus 
Pompeius. The work of Trogus is lost, but the Prologi, or the table 
of contents of the forty-four books, and a few fragments of the text 
are preserved by Justinus and Plinius. Even these Prologi and brief 
extracts contain a large amount of valuable information.^ E. Meyer 
thinks it probable that Justinus also obtained his information from 
Eusebius.3 

B. LITERATURE 

Geo. Grote History of Greece, 18544, X. 506 f.; XI. 605 f.; XII. 
100 f. Ewald Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1864-682. Engl. transL, 
1869-86. Gratz Geschichte der Juden von den altesten Zeiten his 
auf die Gegenwart, 1853-1870, Bd. 2. ii, Kap. 6. F. Justi 
Geschichte des alien Persiens, i8yg. A. Wiedemann Aegyptische 
Geschichte, 1884, II. 646-725. E. Meyer Geschichte des alten 
Aegyptens, 1887, 394-96. Th. Noldeke Aufsdtze zur Persischen 
Geschichte, 1887, 57-85. B. Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 
2. Bd., 1888, 194-96. W. Judeich Kleinasiatische Studien, 
1892, 144-79. ^' V- Gutschmied Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des 
alten Orients, Herausgegeben von Franz Riihl. J. Marquart 
"Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran," in Philologus LIV, 1895, 
507-10. H. Willrich Juden und Griechen vor der Makkahdischen 
Erhebung, 1895, 88-90. Th. Reinach, "La deuxieme ruine de 
Jericho," in Semitic Studies in Memory of Alexander Kohut, 1897, 
457-62. C. H. Cornill Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1898, 174, 175. 
C. Piepenbring Histoire du Peuple d^ Israel, 1898, 583-89, 611-15. 
C. F. Kent A History of the Jewish People during the Babylonian, 
Persian, and Greek Periods, 1899, 229-38. H. Willrich Judaica. 
Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jiidischen Geschichte und liter atur, 1900, 

1 See A. Schone Die Weltchronih des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hier- 
onymus, 1900. 

2 Schiirer op. cit. I. iii. 3 Gesch. des Alt. III. 112. 



HISTORY OE OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 25 

28 f., 35-39, 103-6. H. Winckler "Zum Buche Judith," in Altorien- 
talische Forschungen II, 1899, 266-76. H. Guthe, Article "Israel" 
in E. B. II, 1 901. E. Schiirer Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im 
Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 1902^. H. P. Smith Old Testament History 
in the "International Theological Library," 1903. G. Holscher 
Paldstina in der Persischen und Hellenistischen Zeit, 1903, 46-50. 
J. Wellhausen Israelitische und JUdische Geschichte, 1904s, 192-208. 
H. Guthe Geschichte des Volkes Israel 1904^, 289-301. 

C. THE EMPIRE OF OCHUS 

When Ochus ascended the throne of Persia the empire was nom- 
inally as large as in 485, when Darius I died, although there had been 
many revolts all over the empire during the century and a quarter 
preceding. The successors of Darius were insignificant weaklings, 
unable to carry out the plans of the great organizer. Consequently 
there had been a gradual weakening and dissolution. Egypt had 
established its own government under Amyrtaios in 408, and was in 
reality no longer a part of the Persian empire, although Persia never 
recognized its independence. Many cities of Asia Minor also claimed 
independence. Phoenicia and Cyprus were in a state of revolt. The 
empire handed over to Ochus by his predecessors was a tottering 
structure, held together only by the strong organization effected 
through Darius I, and because there was no other great power ready 
to conquer and destroy it. Yet at the immediate time of his accession 
there seems to have been a short time of quiet and rest. 

In extent no empire before this had such vast dimensions as the 
Persian. From the Indus and the Oxus on the east to the Aegean, 
the Bosporus, and Cyprus on the west, all was one vast empire. Its 
northern boundary was formed by the Euxine and the Caspian 
seas, with the Caucasus mountains between them, while its southern 
limits extended to the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and Arabia. 
Egy])t formed the southwestern limits of the empire, including a 
part of Ethiopia and Libya on the west. The capital of the empire 
was Babylon. The divisions of the empire into satrapies, first 
established by Darius I, was still in vogue. There was the same 
central government, although the strong man at the center was 
wanting. Wealth and force, not mind and intelligence, were the 



26 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

controlling powers. The period of active growth had passed and 
the time of decline and decay had set in. 

D. THE EVENTS OF THE REIGN OF OCHUS 

As we have seen before, Ochus ascended the throne of Cyrus with 
bloody hands. He had a considerable following at the court and 
hoped through Atossa, his mother and sister, to win the king's favor. 
He won her to his side through a promise to marry her after his 
father's death and to make her a partaker in the reign. Slanderous 
reports concerning him reached his father who then appointed Darius 
as his successor.^ Before the death of Artaxerxes II, Darius in- 
curred his ill-will and so lost his claim to the throne. Upon this he 
made an attempt at the life of his father through Tiribazus. The 
plot failed and both he and Tiribazus were executed together with 
fifty others connected with the plot.^" There were yet two brothers 
older than Ochus, Arsames and Ariaspes, who were in his way. 
Ariaspes was considered worthy of the throne by the Persian people 
on account of his gentleness, uprightness, and friendliness. He was 
recognized as a reasonable and intelligent man. Ochus knew this 
and consequently sought his brother's death. He so annoyed and 
vexed him continually that Ariaspes ended his own life by drinking 
the cup of poison. Artaxerxes was too old to see the treachery in 
this and afterwards loved Arsames all the more and placed full 
confidence in him. Ochus delayed no longer now. He compelled 
Harpates, son of Tiribazus, to put Arsames out of the way. Artaxerxes 
in his old age could not resist any further. Grief and sorrow ended 
his life in a little while. ^ 

Ochus now stood first, and became king in his father's place, 358. 
As king he manifested the same sanguinary dispositions as those by 
which he had placed himself on the throne. Whether by reason of 
a troubled conscience or from fear of revenge he did not rest till he 
had killed the remaining members of his family. His sister Ocha, 
whose daughter he had in the harem, was buried alive.-* His two 
younger brothers were assassinated. ^ One of his uncles, with his 
whole family and children and grandchildren, eighty in one day, 

1 Plut. Artax. 26. * Justi Gesch. des alten Persiens 107. 

2 Justinus X. 2. 5 Grote Hist. 0} Greece x. 507. 

3 Plut. Artax. 30. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 27 

he ordered to be shot in his courtyard.' That he did not put to death 
all his near relatives is seen from the fact that some appear in later 
history. His successor, Darius III, and his brother, Oxyathres, 
were great-grandsons of Darius I. Mithredates, the son-in-law of 
Darius, and Pharmaces, his wife's brother, are mentioned after 
the death of Ochus. So also Arbupales, a son of Darius, the brother 
of Ochus, is mentioned in 334,^ and Bisthanes, a son of Ochus, in 
330.3 From all the murderous acts of the king Plutarch is justified 
in saying that Ochus excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and 
bloodthirstiness.'* 

The difficulties of Ochus were not ended when he had secured the 
throne and the court. The revolts suppressed by Artaxerxes II 
were only temporarily quieted. Artabazus, satrap of the Helles- 
pontine Phrygia, Hke Datames and Ariobarzanes, his immediate 
predecessor, had rebelled against Artaxerxes II and was captured 
by Autophradates, but afterwards released. Now when Ochus, in 
356, ordered all satraps on the coast whose revolt he feared to dis- 
charge their mercenary troops, the orders were obeyed. But when 
Ochus wanted Artabazus, his nephew — ^the mother of Artabazus, 
Aspama, being the daughter of Ochus— to give an account for his 
previous revolt he refused.^ At the time of the social war, about 355, 
he fought against the king's satraps and was powerfully supported 
by the Athenians. When rumors of the king's threats against the 
Athenians were spread, they left Artabazus in the lurch. But since 
he was well furnished with money he was able to procure the services 
of the Theban Pammenes, with 5,000 men, and maintained himself 
for a long time.^ When the Thebans also entered into an under- 
standing with the king, his fortune took a turn.' In the year 345 
Artabazus was a fugitive at the court of Philip of Macedon and with 
him his brother-in-law, the Rhodian Memnon, one of the most dis- 
tinguished generals of his time.^ After the reconquest of Egypt, 
two years later, Memnon's brother Mentor was rewarded for his 
services in the war with Egypt with a hundred talents of silver and 

1 Justinus X. 3. I. 5 Diod. xvi. 22; Plut. Artax. 16. 

2 Arrian i. 16. 6 Diod. xvi. 34. 

3 Ibid. iii. 19. 7 Ihid. 40. 

4 Artax. 30. 8 iifici,^ ^3. 



28 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

other precious gifts, and at the same time was appointed satrap over 
the rebeUious portions on the coast of Asia. Mentor stood in close 
relation with Memnon and Artabazus and procured pardon for them 
and their families. From then on till the overthrow of the empire 
Artabazus remained loyal. ^ 

At the same time Artabazus revolted came also the revolt of 
Orontes, satrap of eastern Armenia under his father-in-law Arta- 
xerxes 11.^ He had fought for the king against Euagoras, king of 
Salamis in Cyprus 386-363. An intrigue against Tiribazus gave 
him the chief command in the Cyprian war.^ When his treachery 
was discovered the king was displeased and deprived him of his 
position as satrap of Armenia and banished him to Mysia where he 
was satrap under the immediate oversight of Autophradates, the 
most faithful of all satraps. When, at the close of the reign of Arta- 
xerxes II, there was a general uprising in western Asia against the 
king of Persia, he was appointed commander of the troops of Asia 
Minor. When the plan failed he betrayed his troops with the hopes 
of becoming satrap of the coast lands, the position of Cyrus the 
Younger and of his successor, Tissaphernes.^ His hopes, however, 
were not realized. He did not get the position he desired, as a 
reward for his treachery, but Armenia, of which he was deprived 
twenty years before. ^ He then entered into an understanding with 
Nectanebus of Egypt, but before the death of Artaxerxes II was 
forced to submit again.^ 

And now, after Ochus was upon the throne, this same Orontes' 
revolted again and still with the same aim of becoming satrap of the 
coast districts, 254-253, and became the king's most dangerous 
opponent next to Egypt.^ He entered into an alKance with Athens. 
At this time a rumor was current that the king of Persia was pre- 
paring a great expedition against Athens and Greece. The Greeks 
probably felt guilty on account of their wavering policy, and the 
mercenary support which they had repeatedly lent to rebellious 

1 Diod. xvi. 52. 

2 Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 8; 5. 40; iii. 4. 13; 5. 17; iv. 3. 4; cf. Plut. Artax. 27. 

3 Diod. XV. 8, 9, 18. 6 Ibid. 

"i Ibid. 91. 7 Judeich Kleinasiatische Studien 221-25. 

s Justinus Prol. x. 8 Demosth. De Symmoriis xiv. 31. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 29 

satraps. Demosthenes warned the Athenians against taking a 
hostile attitude towards the king on the grounds of mere rumors, 
and advised not to offend the king frivolously, 351/ It is probable 
that Orontes, after concluding a peace favorable to himself, finally- 
obtained what he so long desired, the satrapy of the coast regions, 
a position he held till after the reconquest of Egypt in 343, when 
Mentor of Rhodes was appointed to this office by Ochus for the 
valuable services rendered in that war.^ 

Phoenicia and Cyprus first came under Persian dominion in the 
days of Darius I. A century later Artaxerxes II, after a war of six 
years against Euaxares, king of Salamis, on Cyprus, again reduced 
them to submission from which they never afterwards were able to 
rise to independence.^ Toward the close of the reign of Artaxerxes 
II there was a general revolt of the western states. Egypt, already 
independent, would have delighted to see other states withdraw from 
the Persian empire. The satrapies of Asia Minor also desired 
independence. A general revolt was agreed upon but was sup- 
pressed before any real outbreak. This, however, was only the lull 
before the storm. Through the instigation of Egypt the cities of 
Phoenicia revolted and were joined by the kings of Cyprus. Eua- 
goras II was at this time king of Salamis, 352.^ 

The revolt broke out in Sidon. It was the custom of the Persian 
kings wherever they stayed for any length of time to build a park 
where everything beautiful and valuable which the country produced, 
both of plants and of animals, was collected. Such a park was at 
Sidon. 5 This was destroyed by the Sidonians. The hay which the 
Persian officials had collected for the war with Egypt was burned. 
The officials themselves were slain. The immediate cause for this 
revolt may have been the wounding of their religious feelings by the 
Persian officials, a point on which Semitic people are particularly 
sensitive.^ Tyre and Aradus joined with Sidon and soon all Phoenicia 
was under revolt. Nectanebus II, of Egypt, in answer to a request 
from Tennes, king of Sidon, sent 4,000 Greek mercenaries under 

1 Demosth. De Rhodiorum Libertate 191 f. 

2 Judeich op. cit. 217-20. s Justi op. cit. 82. 

3 Diod. XV. 8-10. 6 Noldeke op. cit. 77. 

4 Ibid. 41, 42. 



30 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

the command of the Rhodian Mentor. Ochus, still engaged in the 
preparation for the great campaign, sent Belesys, satrap of Syria, 
and Mizaeus of Cilicia, to check the revolt, but they were driven 
back by Mentor.^ 

While this was taking place there arose a war on the island of 
Cyprus. On that island there were nine principal cities and many 
smaller ones subject to these. Each city had a king, subject to the 
king of Persia. Following the example of Phoenicia, the nine kings 
agreed to sever their connection with Persia. In the spring of 350 
Ochus sent Idrieus, satrap of Caria, with a fleet of forty triremes 
and 8,000 Greek mercenaries, led by the Athenian Phocion, and 
with him Euagoras, formerly a king on the island. They blockaded 
the city of Salamis by land and by sea. Volunteers came from Syria 
and Cilicia with the expectation of obtaining a share in the spoils of 
the city, so that the army of Phocion was doubled.^ All the cities 
except Salamis surrendered to the Persians. Euagoras desired the 
office of king of Salamis, but Ochus retained Pnytagoras, then king, 
who had surrendered to the Persians after the destruction of Sidon.^ 
He was king of Salamis till the time of Alexander the Great. Thus 
the island was once more reduced to submission under the Persian 
power. 

Before the surrender of Salamis the king of Persia had left Babylon 
and moved with his army toward Phoenicia. His army consisted of 
300,000 foot-soldiers, 30,000 horsemen, 300 triremes, and 500 ships 
of burden, besides other ships to convey provisions. When Tennes 
heard of the size of the king's army he lost courage. To save his 
own life he resolved to betray his city into the enemy's hands. So 
he sent his servant Thessalion privily to Ochus with a promise not 
only to surrender Sidon but to render him valuable services in the 
reconquest of Egypt. The king rejoiced greatly over this and 
promised Tennes rich rewards. Of this he gave Thessahon the 
most reliable security.^ 

Ochus considered the conquest of the greatest importance and 
consequently sent to the largest cities in Greece to aid him in the 
expedition. Athens and Sparta replied that they wished to keep the 

1 Diod. xvi. 41, 42. 3 Ibid. 46. 

2 Ibid. 42. 4 Ibid. 43. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 3 1 

friendship with Persia but that they could not send any troops. 
Thebes replied with i,ooo heavy armed soldiers under Lacrates; 
Argos sent 3,000 men at the king's request and consented to let 
Nicostratus go as commander; the coast cities of Asia sent 6,000 
men, making a total of 10,000. Before their arrival the king had 
encamped near Sidon, 348.^ 

Because of the king's delay the Sidonians had provided them- 
selves with sufficient troops and provisions. A triple wall was con- 
structed around the city. They also had more than a hundred 
triremes and quinqueremes. Tennes now persuaded Mentor to 
assist in the betrayal and left him in the city, while he himself went 
out under pretext of going to counsel with the king and took with him 
a hundred of the leading citizens of Sidon. When he came near the 
camp he had the hundred men arrested and delivered to Ochus. 
The king received Tennes as a friend and had the hundred men 
shot with spears as instigators of the revolt. Afterwards 500 Sido- 
nians, with the signal of fugitives, came to Ochus beseeching him for 
mercy for the city. These also were captured and slain, so relentless 
was his anger for the murder of his officers. Tennes then persuaded 
the Egyptian mercenaries to let him and the king into the city. The 
betrayer's turn came next, for he thought now to have no more need 
of Tennes, and hence he had him slain. Before the king entered 
the city, the betrayed Sidonians, in their despair, burned all their ships 
so no one could flee for safety, and then set the city on fire and killed 
themselves and their dependents. It is said that 40,000 people per- 
ished. Ochus then sold the ruins to people who hoped to find melted 
gold and silver in the ashes. "^ The Greek mercenaries, with their 
commander Mentor, whom Nectanebus had sent to assist Sidon, now 
joined Ochus against Egpyt. The remainder of Phoenicia readily 
submitted to the requests of Ochus. This was the severest blow the 
nation ever received in all its history. This tragic downfall of the 
once so powerful city must have made a deep impression on the whole 
world. It was the best preparation for the conquest of Egypt. 

The one great aim of Ochus was the reconquest of Egypt.^ For 

I Ibid. 44. " Ibid. 45. 

3 Judeich op. cit. chap, iv; Meyer Gesch. des alten Aeg. 394-96; Wiedemann, 
Aeg. Gesch. II. 700-21. 



32 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

the wider interests of the empire this was of greatest importance, both 
because of the great resources of that country and for warding off the 
danger that might arise from it if left unconquered. Egypt was first 
conquered by the Persians under Cambyses in 525. The Egyptians, 
however, never abandoned the hope of regaining their independence. 
Repeated attempts resulted in failure until in 408, when under 
Amyrtaeus the desired end was accompHshed and Egypt was again 
independent for a period of sixty-five years. But Persia was un- 
willing to let go of so valuable a portion of its own empire. Con- 
sequently, after the accession of Artaxerxes II to the throne in 404, 
repeated efforts were made to regain the lost territory. Persia in 
fact never recognized the independence of Egypt. Already in 389, 
and again in 374, expeditions were made to subdue the revolting 
Egyptians but without any encouraging results for Persia. In the 
early part of his reign Artaxerxes II was occupied in withstanding the 
attempts of his brother Cyrus the Younger to seize the crown. ^ All 
through his reign disintegrating forces were at work within the 
empire, which the king was unable to check completely. Conse- 
quently his ability for reconquering Egypt was weakened.^ On the 
other hand, Egypt never ceased to stir up revolts in Asi?i. Minor and 
Phoenicia and Cyprus against the hated Persians. 

In the great revolt of the satraps of Asia Minor, in 361, Egypt took 
an active part. King Tachos sent them money and ships, and 
planned to move aggressively against Persia with the help of the 
Spartan king, Agesilaos, and the Athenian Chabrias. He was 
equipped with 200 well-manned triremes under command of Chabrias, 
10,000 chosen Greek mercenaries under Agesilaos, and 80,000 foot- 
soldiers of Egypt whom he himself commanded. Discord arose 
concerning the plans of the war and as soon as the expedition started 
out, the king's cousin, Nectanebus, rebelled against him and attempted 
to seize the throne. Agesilaos joined Nectanebus and the whole 
undertaking was speedily defeated. There was nothing left for 
Tachos but to flee. He first sought refuge with Straton, king of 
Sidon, and then fled to the king of Persia and surrendered himself 
unconditionally. He afterwards died at the king's court. ^ 

1 Xen. Anab. ii. i. 14. 

2 Diod. XV. 3 Ibid. 92; Plut. Agesilaos 37, 38. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 33 

In the same year must have occurred an expedition against Egypt 
under the Persian prince Ochus, the first of the three expeditions 
made/ for we are definitely told by Eusebius^ that Ochus made 
an expedition against Egypt while his father Artaxerxes was still 
living. OSto? 6*fl;i^09 et? AiyvTrrov iTrtarparevaaf; ert ^wvro<i rod 
irarpo^ 'Apra^ep^ov, gj? kuI dWot, /xera ravra eKparijcrev 'Atyvirrov 
<f)€V'yovTe<i "NeKTave^o}, w? Tive<i, ek AWiOTriav, &)? Se erepoi, eh Ma/ce- 
hoviav. It is not clear what the results were of this expedition. All that 
is known is that Nectanebus I was at this time the unlimited monarch 
of Egypt. Agesilaos was rewarded for his services, but on his way 
home he died in Cyrene.^ 

When Artaxerxes died and Ochus succeeded him on the throne, 
Egypt continued to be the main issue for the Persians. Extensive 
preparations were made and in 354^ a second campaign was directed 
against Egypt, this time not by Ochus in person but by his generals, 
the satraps of Asia Minor. The outcome was unfavorable to the 
Persians not only in its immediate results, but also in the effect it 
had on other portions of the empire and the world without.^ It 
encouraged Phoenicia and Cyprus and Cihcia to revolt. In 346 
Isocrates'^ used this failure as an argument for Phihp to make war 
against Persia because it was no longer to be feared, ra roivvv irepl 
rrjv ^((aipav w? SiaKeirai,, rk ov/c av a.KOvaa'i irapa^vvdeirj TroXefielv 
7rpo<; aiiTov; AijVTTTO'i yap cKJjeicrT'^KaL uev /cat /car' eKelvov tov ■)(^p6vov^ 
ov firjv aW icjjo^ovvTO firj irore ^aa-ikev'i avTo<i iroLrja-d/jievo^ crrpa- 
reiav KparrjcFeie Koi tt]^ Sid rov woTaixov Bva')(^(opM<{ koI t?}? dX\r}<; 
irapacTKevfj'; a.Trda-rj'i • vvv Se oyro? UTrijWa^ev avrovf rod Seov^ tovtov. 
av/JiTrapacrKevacrdfievo^ yap SvvafiLV oarjv olo'i t' rjv TrXeicrTTjv, kol 
(TTpaTevcra^ eV avrov^, dirriXOev i/celOev ov (xovov ^TTTjOeh, dWd Kal 
KaTayeXaadeU, Kal Sofa? oure ^acriXeveiv ovre o-TpaTrjyelv d^Lo<i elvau 
And yet this failure did not discourage Ochus but stimulated him 
to make new and larger preparations. ^ As we have seen before, 
Ochus set out from Babylon with a tremendous army and had 

1 Justinus Prol. x. 

2 Ed. Schone ii2=Sync. 486. 20. 

3 Diod. XV. 93. 

4 Demosth. De Khod. Libertate xv. 12. 

s Diod. xvi. 40, 41, 44, 48; Orosius iii. 7. 8. 

6 Ad Phil. 102. 7 Diod. xvi. 40, 41. 



34 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

encamped before Sidon which he cruelly destroyed in 348 and ren- 
dered all Phoenicia subject to his will.^ 

This victory was itself the first step towards the conquest of Egypt. 
Other preparations were made. Ochus awaited the troops from 
Thebes and Argos. In 346 he made the first advance of his third 
campaign against Egypt. The troops missed the way of entrance 
and a part of the army perished in the Barathra, the Serbonian 
swamp between Mount Kasios and Damiata, half-way between 
Syria and Egypt, surrounded on all sides by sand-hills, which were 
frequently carried into the swamp, forming a bottomless marsh so 
that entire armies not knowing the nature of the swamp could sink 
down.^ Ochus was forced to return to Phoenicia till the spring of 
the following year, when he again started out against Egypt.^ His 
army consisted of three divisions, led by three Greek and three 
Persian generals i'^ the first of Boeotian mercenaries led by the 
Theban Lakrates and Rosaces, satraps of Ionia and Lydia; the 
second of troops from Argos led by Nikastrates and the Persian 
Aristabazus; the third of the Greek mercenaries sent by Egypt to 
Sidon, now led by the Rhodian Mentor and the Persian eunuch 
Bagoas. Ochus followed with the remaining troops as a reserve 
force, s 

The army of Nectanebus consisted of 20,000 Greek and 20,000 
Libyan mercenaries and 60,000 Egyptians. The land was well 
fortified. All the Nile entrances were strongly fortified, especially 
the one at Pelusium. But Nectanebus was no great general. Ochus 
advanced upon Pelusium. The Greek generals succeeded through 
their maneuvering to bring Nectanebus out of his position. Con- 
sequently he withdrew to Memphis. The approach of the army 
was enough to cause the coward to flee to Ethiopia. The remaining 
cities surrendered one after the other. The fortifications were broken 
down, the temples plundered and the sacred books carried away, 
and returned by Bagoas to the priests only after these paid large sums 
for them. Ochus treated the religion of Egypt with little more 
respect than did Cambyses before him. Not only did he desecrate 

1 Diod. xvi. 45; Isok. Ad Phil. 102. 4 Cf. Marquart op. cit. 507. 

2 Strabo xvi. 741, 760; Diod. i. 30. s Diod. xvi. 47. 

3 Judeich op. cit. 173-76. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 35 

their temples but he even slaughtered the sacred animals. This may- 
account for the fact that neither his name nor that of his successors 
is mentioned in the inscriptions/ 

This reconquest was a great triumph for Persia. Through it the 
name of Ochus received respect. Yet it was not hard to see that the 
victory was due to the Greek troops and commanders, and that the 
" Persians did not conquer by reason of their ability in war but simply 
because they had the most money to pay mercenary troops. It was 
to Mentor and not to Bagoas that the king chiefly owed his success. 
Mentor was the real conqueror of Egypt, yet the presence of the king 
and his prompt decisions contributed much to the speedy results. 
Mentor was splendidly rewarded. He received the satrapy of the 
coast regions of Asia Minor. By cunning and treachery he quickly 
removed Hermias, the tyrant of Alarucus and the friend of Aristotle, 
who had concluded treaties like an independent prince and stood 
in suspicious relations with king Phihp of Macedon.^ The Greek 
mercenaries were paid and dismissed. Pherendates was appointed 
satrap of Egypt, and Ochus returned triumphantly to his capital, 
Babylonia, in 343.3 Egypt remained a Persian province till the 
close of the empire. 

The rise of Macedonia as a political power dates from Philip II, 
359-336. Before him it had no special bearing upon Persian history, 
although invaded and temporarily conquered by Xerxes in 480. 
While Philip entered upon the work of expanding his territory, his 
eyes were first of all fixed upon Greece. At first his invasions were 
resisted by Athens. For ten years there was war between them. 
The bitter opponent of Phihp was Demosthenes, the greatest orator 
of Greece, who at this time had espoused the cause of the democracy, 
whose party leader he became. He saw more clearly than anyone 
else the designs of Philip, and recognized in him a dangerous enemy 
of Athens and of all Greece. And yet in spite of all opposition 
Philip advanced step by step into Greek territory. Pydna and 
Potidaea, two Athenian cities, fell in 356. Three years later Phihp 
invaded Thessaly and Phocis, and obtained supremacy there. Demos- 
thenes poured out his bitter invectives against Philip to arouse the 
Athenians to a sense of their danger.^ He believed the only safety 

I Ibid. 48-51. 2 Ibid. 52. 3 Ibid. 51. 4 Phil, i, p. 54. 



36 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

for Greece now lay in an alliance with the Persians against Philip. 
He favored the negotiations now going on between Athens and the 
king of Persia, who indeed repeatedly sent subsidies for the conflict 
with Macedonia. 

In 349 Phihp advanced into Thrace and conquered the Athenian 
Olynthus. The only hope now of saving middle Greece from the 
inroads of Philip was to enter into a treaty of peace with him. Even 
Demosthenes consented to this. There arose at this time a Mace- 
donian party right in Athens under the leadership of Aeschines, the 
rival politician of Demosthenes. Differences arose between the two 
orators which later resulted in unreconcilable animosity. A peace 
was, however, concluded in 346, which gave Phihp the Athenian 
colonies on the Thracian coast. In a letter of Darius to Alexander 
it is definitely stated that Phihp concluded a peace also with Ochus 
shortly after the reconquest of Egypt.^ The king's intentions no 
doubt were pure but not so those of Philip. He had to subdue 
Greece first before he could conquer Asia Minor, and for this purpose 
peace with Persia was advantageous to him. The honest but politi- 
cally shortsighted Isocrates overlooked this fact when he urged 
Phihp to attack Persia. Philip saw in Persia a great obstacle to his 
aims for a large empire. Hence his attitude toward Persia was 
definite and decisive. Persia must recede before Macedonia. The 
only reason for delay was to await the proper moment. It is probable 
that Phihp tried to gain a foothold in Asia Minor through Artabazus 
who had fled to his court for safety. But when Ochus, after the 
reconquest of Egypt, appointed the skilful general and diplomat, 
Mentor, and restored Artabazus to his hereditary satrapy, he under- 
stood the pohtical situation. He thereby fortified Asia Minor. He 
was aware of Philip's plans. There was no immediate danger, but 
Ochus noticed the attempts of Phihp to secure the mastery of the 
Bosporus and of the Hellespont, This was sufficient cause for alarm. 

It was in the year 340 that Philip sent a fleet into the Hellespont 
and began to besiege Perinthus. Philip's plans were no longer a 
secret. Conflict between Macedonia and Persia were now inevitable. 
The Athenians sent an embassy to Ochus for help against Phihp 
which Ochus refused, for he was not well disposed toward the 

I Arr. ii. 14. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 37 

Athenians. But when Philip continued his siege of Perinthus, Ochus 
ordered the coast satraps to help Perinthus with all their power. 
Through the help of Athens and Persia Perinthus was saved from 
the power of PhiHp.^ Thereupon Ochus sent troops to invade 
Thrace in order to weaken Phihp in his own country, but with 
little effect. The help that Persia gave Perinthus was to the Mace- 
donians equivalent to a declaration of war. The Persians did not 
see as we now do from the result, that it was necessary for them to 
prevent the subjugation of Greece to insure their own safety. Or 
if they saw it they lacked energy to act.^ The reasons for their 
failure to help Athens and Greece are not evident. After the battle 
of Chaeronea, 338, Phihp was master of Greece. Just at this time 
Ochus died and was succeeded by his son Arses. Upon this Phihp 
openly sought to unite the Greeks against the Persians. In the spring 
of 336 he sent troops to Asia Minor to free the Greek cities. But 
Persia was not to suffer much at his hands, for in the summer of the 
same year Phihp was assassinated. Persia was granted a breathing- 
spell but only for a brief while. The work which Phihp had begun 
was carried to its completion by his son and successor on the throne, 
Alexander the Great. ^ 

The reHable sources outside of the Old Testament for the history 
of Judea, during the reign of Ochus, are scanty. Only fragmentary 
evidence is at hand, yet of sufficient rehability to enable us to form 
a reasonably definite conception of the conditions and events during 
that time. Judea always held a middle geographical position be- 
tween larger and contending countries. At first it was Assyria and 
after that Babylonia on the one side, and Egypt on the other. Now 
it was Persia and Egypt in their long-continued struggles with each 
other. So closely was Judea connected with Phoenicia and Syria 
that it was always affected by their successes or reverses, so that 
Judea's fate can be inferred partly from that of its close-hnked 
neighbors. That violent disturbances occurred among the Jews 
during the reign of Ochus is generally recognized among historians. 
Just what these disturbances were, and through what agencies they 

1 Diod. XV. 75; Arr. ii. 14. 

2 Noldeke op. cit. 80. 

3 Diod. xvi. 91; Just. ix. 5, 6; Arr. ii. 14. 



38 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

were brought about, and at what definite time, are matters of less 
certainty and of differences of opinion. 

There appear to have been two uprisings in Judea during the 
reign of Ochus. This was established already by Gutschmied.^ 
The first of these came in close connection with the second campaign 
of Ochus against Egypt, 353-52.^ It is more than likely that the 
Jews revolted against the Persians who, on their way to Egypt, passed 
in front of their homes. Why should they be led away into cap- 
tivity to Hyrcania {vide infra) except for revolting against the Persians 
and for refusing to yield to all their wishes and encroachments ?3 
Since the days of Jeremiah Egypt had been more or less of an asylum 
for many Jews. In this way there may have grown up something of 
a kindred feeling between Jews and Egyptians.^ This fact may also 
have added to the Jewish hatred of the Persians now advancing 
against Egypt under the command of the satraps of Asia Minor. 
Both Diodorus and Plutarch speak of the cruelty of Ochus in his 
court and in his rule over the empire {vide infra). From such a 
ruler we would then expect just such treatment of the Jews who 
showed no inclination to be obedient subjects to a nation whose 
religion was so different from their own. 

Actual traces of just what we would otherwise expect are found 
in our historic sources. The first of these to notice is a quotation 
from SoHnus 35.4: "Judaeae caput fuit Hierusolyma, sed excisa 
est. Successit Hierichus: et haec desivit, Artaxerxis bello subacta." 
Dodwell^ and more recently Th. Reinach^ advanced the supposition 
that the Artaxerxes mentioned is Ardashir I, the founder of the 
Sassanid kingdom, 224-242 a. d., who threatened Syria under 
Alexander Severus in 233 a. d. Reinach thinks that Solinus mis- 

1 Jahrhucher jiir Klassische Philologie, 1863, 714; so Ewald Gesch.; and Judeich. 
op. cit. 170, 171. 

2 Hieronymus, 359-58, but in the seventh year of Ochus. Armenian Transl. 
354. 

3 Gratz, Gesch. der Juden II. 2. no, thinks if the captivity can be accepted as 
history, then it is due to their adherence to their doctrines and convictions. 

4 Cf. The Assuan Papiri. 

5 In Hudson Ceograph. Graec. II. 71. 

6 "La deuxieme mine de Jericho" in Sem. Studies in Memory oi Alex. Kohut. 
457-462. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 39 

interpreted his source, Plinius, and wrote Jericho for Machaerus. 
" Solin aurait mal interpr^te le texte de PHne, change par inadvert- 
ance Machaerus en Hiericus."^ How could Sohnus, a writer of 
mediocrity, get a hold of such an isolated fact ? The destruction of 
Jerusalem was that of the year 70 a. d. through Titus, after which 
Jericho also was destroyed. "Hierichus successit" must be inter- 
preted cum grano salts, not that Jericho became the capital of Judea, 
but that it was the second city in rank. And this it was no more in 
the fourth century, hence it experienced a disaster after Titus and 
before Sohnus. Within this time there was an Artaxerxes, namely 
Ardashir I. He and not Ochus is meant in the quotation of Solinus. 
Jericho was destroyed not by the Persians but by the Romans for 
siding with the Persians. For how could the Persians invade Jericho 
with its strong fortifications ? Moreover, why should they ? What 
occasion was there for it ? There was no cause for the Jews to be 
provoked at the Persians, but every reason for them to hate the 
Romans who imposed taxes upon them and restricted their efforts 
in making proselytes. Finally the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus 
could easily have been mistaken for that of Alexander Severus by 
Solinus following Jerome and Eusebius. Reinach concludes by 
admitting that this is only a conjecture, but thinks that it has the 
advantage of not doing violence to the text and that it affords a more 
reasonable view of the history. Schiirer^ inclines to accept this and 
calls the quotation a confused remark usually applied to the cam- 
paign of Ochus against the Jews. He is followed by E. Meyer^ 
who thinks it better to apply the passage to the reign of Ardashir I. 
Cheyne also accepts the conclusion of Reinach. 

On the other hand, is it not just as easy to assume that Solinus 
had a source unknown to us otherwise, from which he learned the 
fact stated, as to think that he confused names and dates of events ? 
Why should the Romans destroy Jericho when the enemy with whom 
the Jews are supposed to have sympathized never crossed the Eu- 
phrates at this time ? It is just as easy, and this may be the correct 
interpretation, to take "excisa est" cum grano salts as "Hierichus 
successit," and say that the disaster that befell Jerusalem was not a 
destruction like that through Nebuchadrezzar, or later through 

I P. 457. 2 Op. cit. III. 6. n. 3 Gesch. des Alt. III. 212. 



40 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Antiochus Epiphanes, or through Antiochus Sidetes, nor yet Hke 
that of Titus, but some lesser disaster that made less impression 
upon the world outside and yet temporarily at least made Jerusalem 
unfit or undesirable for a capital. 

Mommsen' has rightly taken the opposite view and has con- 
clusively shown the impossibility of Reinach's conclusion since there 
is no evidence that Ardashir I ever came near Palestine.^ Twice 
he made an attempt to advance westward, but was unable to cross 
the Mesopotamian desert. In 233 he met with some success in the 
Roman Asiatic possessions, but was defeated by Alexander Sevenis 
in a great battle.^ Under the Roman Maximus, 235-238, Mesopo- 
tamia came into the power of Ardashir and the Persians again threat- 
ened to cross the Euphrates. In 242 the Romans once more declared 
war against the Persians and defeated them completely. Ardashir 
had demanded from Rome all the provinces formerly in the empire 
of Darius but never obtained them. There was a long and bitter 
conflict between the Romans and the Sassanids, but no evidence 
can be adduced that Ardashir ever crossed the Euphrates. ^ Nothing 
is mentioned of a destruction of Jericho. Mommsen says:^ "Hoc 
scio neque a Solino usquam talia citari ipsius aetate gesta neque 
Artaxerxen ilium attigisse Palaestinam." The citation from Die 
Cassius^ does not prove in any way that Ardashir advanced farther 
than the Euphrates. Holscher^ therefore rightly concludes that 
the quotation from Solinus points to Artaxerxes II and that since 
there is nothing against its credibility there remains nothing but to 
accept it as fact. 

Another reference is found in Eusebius :^ *^%o9 'Apra^ep^ov iraU 
€49 AiyvTTTov crrpaTevcov jxepiK'qv al')(fia\ci)aiav elXev 'lovSaiwv, &v 
Toi"? fiev iv "Tp/cavLct KarwKtae 7rpo<i rrj KaaKia daXda-crr], tov<; 8' iv 
^a^vkSiVL. ol KoX yu-e^/si vvv elcnv avroOt, &)? ttoWoI tcov '^Wtjvcov 
laropova-iv. In the translation of Hieronymus^ we read: "Ochus 

1 Solinus Introd. vii; cf. Romische Gesch., 18863 V. 419-21. 

2 Noldeke op. cit. 86-92; Justi op. cit. 177-82. 

3 Lampridius Al. Sevreus 56. 4 Euseb. =Sync. 674 and 6S3. 
5 Solinus Introd. vii. ^ Ixxx. 3. 

7 Paldstina in der Pers. u. Hel. Zeit 47, 48. 

8 Chron. ed. Schone II. 112 =Sync. 486. 10. o Ibid. 113. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 4I 

Apodasmo Judaiorum capta in Hyrcaniam accolas translates juxta 
mare Caspium conlocavit." In the Armenian translation^ this reads: 
"Ochuspartem aliquam de Romanis Judaeisque cepit et habitare fecit 
in Hyrcania juxta mare Cazbium." There is some doubt as to the 
sources from which Eusebius drew his information {vide supra 
p. 24,) but scarcely any as to the credibility of the facts mentioned. 
-Wellhausen^ calls it "eine schwache Kunde" and Stade^ considers 
the quotation "sehr dunkel." Others accept it as reliable, and 
rightly so. Schiirer'* is no doubt correct in saying that Tov<i S' ev /3a- 
^vXSiVL was added by Syncellus "out of his own wisdom," and that 
the Armenian translation added "de Romanis." 

A reference undoubtedly based on Eusebius is found in Orosius 
iii. 7: "Tunc etiam Ochus, qui et Artaxerxes,^ post transactum in 
Aegypto maximum diuturnumque bellum, plurimos Judaiorum in 
transmigratinem egit, atque in Hyrcania ad Caspium mare habitare 
praecepit: quos ibi usque in hodierum diem amplissimis generis sui 
incrementis consistere, atque exinde quandoque erupturos opinio 
est." 

Confirming evidence is also found in the condition of the Jericho 
valley at this time, as Holscher^ has shown from Diodorus' who had 
for his source in this case Hieronymus of Kardia, who wrote in the 
days of Antigonus, 323-301, a successor of Alexander the Great. 
No more reliable source could be asked for. According to this source 
the whole Jericho valley in the last decade of the fourth century was 
no longer Jewish but Arabian, whom Hieronymus calls Nabataeans. 
Holscher^ has pointed out that their territory included Idumaea, 
which extended from Engedi northward. These Idumaeans then 
pressed into the Jericho valley after its desolation. As in earlier 
deportations, so now not all Jews were removed, but enough so that 
the general character of the land became Arabian. 

A final and less certain reference is found in Justinus xxxvi. 3: 
"Primum Xerxes rex Persarum Judaios domuit; postea cum ipsis 
Persis in dicionem Alexandri Magni venere, diuque in potestate 

'^ Ibid. 112. 5' Apra^^p^es 6 aKoXovdeis'Cixoi. 

2 Op. cit. 192. , 6 Qp_ cit. 48-50. 

3 Gesch. des Volhes Isr. II. 194. 7 xix. 98=ii. 48. 

4 Op. cit. III. 6, n. 8 Op. cit. 23-25. 



42 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Macedonici imperii subjecti Syriae regno fuere. A Demetrio cum 
descivissent, amicitia Romanorum petita, primi omnium ex oriental- 
ibus libertatem receperunt, facile tunc Romanis de alieno largien- 
tibus." There is no other evidence that Xerxes ever forced the Jews 
into subjection. It is very probable that we are to understand with 
Holscher^ that the original reading was Artaxerxes (III) instead of 
Xerxes. He thinks that the information is based on Timagenes who 
wrote during the latter half of the first century b. c. 

Taking all these evidences together we have the strong probability 
if not the absolute certainty that Jericho was devastated and that the 
Jews were deported to Hyrcania during the reign of Ochus, and, as 
shown before, within the year 353-352, as a punishment for their 
rebellion or at least for their refusal to submit to the Persian rule. 
This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that there was a large 
colony of Jews in Hyrcania numbering in the Roman time not only 
thousands but millions.^ Granted that many of these went there 
of their own choice and that many more were born there, the accept- 
ance of these historic references explains the beginning of the colony, 
which is otherwise not explained in history. Finally, also, the frequent 
occurrence of the name Hyrcanus among the Jews^ points in the 
same direction, and to the time of Ochus rather than to a later period,'* 
since in the later period the name is already in common use. 

The second revolt of the Jews during the reign of Ochus, as 
Judeich,5 followed by Guthe,*^ has clearly shown, came in connection 
with the third campaign against Egypt shortly after the destruction 
of Sidon, 348, and before the final reconquest of Egypt, 343. Nol- 
deke^ incorrectly connects this with the first revolt, and Stade^ places 
it still earlier, namely in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, while 
Schiirer^ is uncertain as to the date. Willrich'° supposes the Josephus 
section to refer to an event of the Maccabaean period. Bagoses is 

1 Op. cit. 46, n. 

2 Schiirer op. cit. III. 6, 7, based on Jos. Ant. xi. 5. 2. 

3 Jos. Ant. xxii. 4. 6-11; Vita i; II Mak. 3:11; often in Mishna. 

4 As Winckler and Willrich, by their system of change of names, claim. 

5 Op. cit. 171, n. 

^ Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 292. 7 Op. cit. 77-78. 

8 Op. cit. 194. 9 Op. cit. III. 6, n. 

10 Juden u. Griechen vor der Mak. Erhebung 88-89. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 43 

not the Persian Bagoas but Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus did not 
make Ochus a persecutor of the Jews. In fact Ochus was not an 
enemy of the Jews. All the references originated from the Josephus 
passage and that does not refer to Ochus but to Antiochus Epiphanes.^ 
That this conclusion does not stand appears already from a historic 
examination of the sources. Such confusing or changing of names 
is not in harmony with the historic method of Josephus. Already 
Ewald^ considered it likely that the Jews rebelled with their near 
neighbors, the Phoenicians, against the Persians. This is indeed more 
than probable. Otherwise it is difficult to see why their temple 
should be polluted and additional burdens be laid upon them. It 
was the common practice of the Persians to inflict such visitations 
upon revolting colonists. 

In the section of Josephus^ we read that after the death of the 
high priest Eliashib, his son Judas succeeded him in that office, and 
he in turn was followed by Johanan. He gave Bagoses^ ( = Bagoas) 
occasion to desecrate the temple and to burden the Jews with a com- 
pulsory tax of fifty drachmas from the common income for every lamb 
before the sacrifice. This came about as follows : Johanan had a 
brother, Jesus, to whom Bagoses, as to a good friend, had promised 
the office of high priest. This led to a quarrel between the two 
brothers in which Johanan slew Jesus. This was an outrageous act 
on the part of the high priest, so much more horrible since such an 
ungodly act was unheard of either among the Greeks or the 
barbarians. Consequently, as a result for this act, God allowed the 
people to be reduced to servitude and their temple to be polluted 
by the Persians. For as soon as Bagoses learned that Johanan slew 
his brother in the temple he censured the Jews with the reproach: 
"And so you dared to commit a murder in your temple?" And 
when they refused him entrance into their temple he said to them : 
"Am I not purer than the man who committed murder in the 
temple ?" And with these words he entered the temple. The death 
of Jesus gave Bagoses a desired occasion to oppress the Jews seven 
years. 5 

I Judaica § 39 and §103. 2 Gesch. II. 2. 210. 

3 Ant. xi. 7. I, ed. Niese, 1892; with Josephus agree Diod. xvii. 5.3 and Strabo. 

4 Grk. ^aydarjs ed. Niese. 

5 Cf. Sachau Drei aram. Papyrusurhunden aus Elephantine, 1906*. 



44 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Contrary to Stade' who says: "tFber die Schicksale der jiidischen 
Gemeinde in dem Jahrhundert, welches zwischen Nehemias Statt- 
halterschaft und dem Einbruch Alexanders in das persische Reich 
verflossen ist, durch ganz Vorderasien in eine neue Entwicklung 
hingerissen wurde, erfahren wir aus dem Alten Testamente direct 
gar nichts. Und auch die Geschichtliche Uberlieferung anderer 
Volker lasst uns fiir diesen Zeitraum in der Geschichte der 
Gemeinde volHg im Stiche;" and contrary to Wellhausen^ who says 
of the second half of the Persian period : "Uber die aussere Geschichte 
dieser Zeit erfahren wir beinahe nichts," we have found historic 
traces which bear upon the period and throw rays of light upon it 
that enable us to understand to some extent the conditions of the 
Jewish community in the days of Ochus. 

It remains yet, after a look at what Ochus did for his own and 
succeeding ages and what sort of a man he was, to examine the 
Biblical records to find what Hght they will throw upon the period 
under consideration. 

E. THE WORK AND CHARACTER OF OCHUS 

Ochus at last fell a prey to the treachery of his most trusted general 
Bagoas shortly after the battle of Chaeronaea, 338. Bagoas, fearing 
a change in the favor of the king, and in order to avenge the death 
of the Egyptian Apis through Ochus, caused the king to drink poison 
and placed Arses,^ the youngest son of Ochus, on the throne. All 
his other sons he killed. When Arses would not let Bagoas rule, 
he too, together with all his children, was slain, and a friend of the 
eunuch, Codomannus, a son of Arsanes, and a great-grandson of 
Darius II, was placed upon the throne. He in turn caused Bagoas 
to drink the poison which Bagoas had prepared for him, because he 
would not yield to the wishes of the eunuch. The same year that 
Codomannus ascended the throne, 336, Phihp II was assassinated 
and followed by his son Alexander. With the death of Ochus and 
the accession of Alexander the death-knell of the Persian empire 
was sounded. It required only a little more time for the inevitable 
to take place. 

I Op. cit. 194. 2 op. cit. 192. 

3 Diod. xvii. 5; Plut. Alex. 



HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 45 

Ochus was the first Persian ruler since Darius I who had in person 
energetically conducted a great expedition and restored the empire 
to its former greatness. It was a great pity that he died just at this 
critical moment/ for far more than in the days of Darius I did the 
empire center in the personahty of the king. The last years of his 
reign show a prompt management and a powerful rule. He was 
.shrewd enough to place the right men in whom he could have con- 
fidence into the most important offices, a management which was 
not always found in oriental courts.^ Plutarch said of Ochus that 
he excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and in blood-thirstiness. ^ 
'Xl^o? wixoTTjTL Kal [xtat^ovCa 7rdvTa<i virepdoKoixevo^, Grote^ calls 
him "a sanguinary tyrant who shed by wholesale the blood of 
his family and courtiers." He was energetic and determined, but 
treacherous and cruel, an oriental despot of an extreme type. His 
cruelty shows itself aHke in his court before and after his accession, 
and in his rule over the empire in Sidon and in Egypt. No means 
were too low for him just so they would accomplish his ends. Cheyne^ 
mentions *'the insane cruelties of that degenerate king, Ochus." 
And Noldeke^ says "he was, it appears, one of those great despots 
who can raise up again for a time a decayed oriental empire, who 
shed blood without scruple and are not nice in the choice of means, 
but who in the actual position of affairs do usually contribute to the 
welfare of the state as a whole." 

1 Noldeke op. cit. 80. * Op. cit. xii, chap. xcii. 

2 Justi op. cit. 139. 5 E. B. III. 2,207. 

3 Artax. 30. ^ Op. cit. 75. 



CHAPTER III 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 

POSSIBLY DATING FROM THE REIGN OF OCHUS OR 

REFLECTING LIGHT THEREON 

After gathering together the historical data bearing on the period 
under consideration from sources and authorities outside the Old 
Testament, both in a general and also in a more particular way, 
it remains for us to search the sacred records to see what additional 
and confiirming information they will yield for this period. It is 
evident that we have it to do not with traditional views but with a 
scientific treatment of the records. Much has been said and written 
on this subject during the last decade or two. And since there is an 
element of uncertainty about the history of the period, there is a great 
diversity of opinions among scholars concerning the Old Testament 
sources finding a historical explanation in this period. There are 
passages also which fit well here and equally so into one or another 
earlier or later period. So, for instance, there is a similarity between 
the conditions in Palestine during the Assyrian and the late Persian 
time, and again between this time and that under Antiochus IV, 
Epiphanes, or of John Hyrcanus. There is no direct reference in the 
Old Testament to Ochus or his reign by name, so that it becomes a 
matter of interpretation through a comparison of the thought con- 
tents of these sources with what is known of the external history of 
the period. 

A. THE SOURCES 

Since the historical method of study found its way into the 
circles of Old Testament students, the true meaning and message of 
the Old Testament is sought in its historic background. Every 
passage is studied with this thought in mind. Consequently the 
correct place in history is sought for every part of the Old Testament. 
The following passages have at some time or other been thought by 
scholars to belong in this period wholly or in part: 

I. Passages from Isaiah: (i) 23: 1-14; (2) 19: 1-15; (3) 14: 
28-32; (4) chaps. 24-27; (5) 32: 9-14; (6) 33: 1-24; (7) chaps. 56-66. 

46 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 47 

II. Psalms 44, 74, 79, and 83. Also 89, 94, 132. 

III. Passages from the Minor Prophets: (i) Joel, chap. 3 [4]; 
(2) Obadiah, vss. 1-15; (3) Habakkuk 1:2 — 2:4, in part; (4) Zecha- 
riah, chap. 14. 

IV. Parts of Job. 

V. The Apocryphal Books: (i) Judith; (2) Tobit. 
Some of these have been shown by later scholarship to belong into 
other periods, so that they can be passed over with a brief notice. 
Some are generally accepted as coming from this time. Others are 
still the subject of discussion. Still others are of such a nature that 
their date can probably never be determined. The present purpose 
is to examine anew each section and group together the arguments 
for and against accepting them for the period under consideration. 

B. THE LITERATURE 

W. R. Smith, Article "Book of Psalms" in E. Bry XX, 1875. 
Ibid. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1892^, 207, 208, 
437-40. Fr. Baethgen Die Psalmen ubersetzt und erkldrt, Hand- 
kommentar zum A. T., 1892. Julius Ley Historische Erkldrung 
des zweiten Jesaia c. 40-66, 1893. W. H. Kosters Het Herstel van 
Israel in het Perzische Tijdvak, 1894, Ger. Transl., 1895, 64-73. 
G. Wildeboer De Letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de Tijdsorde 
van haar Ontstaan, 1893, 1903^, Ger. Transl., 1895. T. K. Cheyne 
Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895. K. Budde, Review of 
Cheyne's Introduction in Th. L. Z., 1896, 286, 287. W. H. Kosters 
"Deutero- en Trito-Jesaja" in Th. Tijdschr., 1896, 577-623. S. R. 
Driver Introduction to the Literature of the O. T., 1891, 1897*^. H. 
Gressmann Ueber die in Jesaia c. 56-66 vorausgesetzten Verhaltnisse, 
1898. J. Skinner, "Isaiah" in Camb. Bib., i, 898. T. K. Cheyne 
Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1898, 158-72. E. Littmann 
Ueber die Abfassungszeit des Trito-Jesaja, 1899. B. Duhm Die 
Psalmen erkldrt, K. H. C. A. T., 1899. K. Marti Das Buch Jesaja, 
K. H. C. A. T., 1900. B. Duhm Das Buch Jesaja ubersetzt und 
erkldrt, H. K. A. T., 1892, I90I^ T. K. Cheyne, "The Book of 
Isaiah," in E. B. II, 1901. W. R. Smith and T. K. Cheyne, Article 
" Psalms" in E. B. Ill, 1902, §§i8, 23, 28. W. Nowack Die Kleinen 
Propheten Ubersetzt und erkldrt, H. K. A. T., 1897, 1903^. K. Marti 



48 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Das Dodekapropheton, in K. H. C. A. T., 1904. C. von Orelli 
Der Prophet Jesaja ausgelegt, 1887, 19042. C. H. Cornill Ein- 
leitung in die Biicher des A. T., 1891, 1905s. G. Holscher Paldstina 
in der Persischen und Hellenistischen Zeit, 1903, 46-50. H. Guthe, 
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1904, 289-301. E. Schiirer Geschichte 
des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 1902^. R. Kittel, 
Article "Psalmen" in Realenc. fur Protestantische Theologie und 
Kirche, 1905. Bd. 16, 

C. EXAMINATION OF THE SOURCES 

I. Passages from Isaiah — (i) Isa. 23: 1-14 [15-18]. *i^ tX^12 The 
Oracle concerning Sidon, one of the ten oracles forming the frame- 
work of Isa., chaps. 13-27. That vss. 15-18, the promised restoration 
of Tyre, do not form a part of the original section but are a later 
addition, was pointed out already by Ewald, who is followed by most 
later writers. These verses stand in strong contrast with vss. 1-14. 
They are not like vss. 1-14, poetry, but prose with a quotation from 
a song in vs. 16. Language, imagery, and subject matter are different 
in the two parts. Ewald and Cheyne place the added verses in the 
beginning of the Persian period.^ Duhm^ places them after the 
fall of Tyre under Alexander the Great in 332, and Marti^ in the 
second century by a writer who recognized in vss. 1-14 the fulfilment 
of a prophecy concerning the fall of Tyre in 332, and who saw the 
rise of Tyre under the Seleucides. The promise of a restoration 
of Tyre, after seventy years, is modeled after Jer. 25: 9-1 1, and 29: 10, 
meaning after a change of dynasty as in case of the Pharaoh of Joseph, 
Ex. 1 : 8. Tyre was really forgotten by reason of the prosperity of 
Carthage and the rise of its rival, Alexandria. Not till the time of 
the Seleucides did it rise again, yet long before the seventy years 
after the conquests. ^ Further evidence of the rise of Tyre is also 
found in Zech. 9:3, "And Tyre did build herself a stronghold, and 
heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets." 

The date of vss. 1-14 has long perplexed the critics. It is evident 
that the text has suffered corruption in order to adapt the poem 

1 So also Eichhorn, Vatke, Konig. 

2 Das Buch Jes. uhersetzt u. erhldrt, ad. loc. 

3 Das Buch Jesaja, ad. loc. 

4 Cf. Schiirer Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes Ih 74. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 49 

to another than its original purpose. The acceptance of the text as 
it is, ^bZ Tyre, and D'^'^iflS Chaldaeans, in vss. i and 12, led W. R. 
Smith' to consider the passage as a prophecy of Isaiah against Tyre 
shortly before Sennacherib's invasion in 701, pointing to the punish- 
ment recently inflicted upon Chaldaea by the Assyrians in 710-709 
or in 701. But even by accepting vs. 13 as it stands, this is hardly 
possible, for it describes a severer disaster than that which befell 
Babylon through Assyria at that time. And, besides, Tyre is not 
mentioned in the inscriptions among the cities besieged by Senna- 
cherib. On the other hand, vs. 13, because of its meaninglessness, 
is rejected by Cheyne^ from belonging to the original poem. Duhm 
and Marti consider the larger portion of it as a gloss and emend the 
remainder. 

The introduction of D'''^i233 was thought to be too abrupt. 
Ewald proposed to change it to D"'53^5t' Canaanites. His con- 
jecture was adopted by Schrader,^ Cheyne, Orelh, DeHtzsch, and 
viewed favorably by Dillman and Driver. •* Cheyne afterward 
reverted to D'^'^iSS on Assyriological grounds. If the emendation 
would stand, then the verse would refer simply to the threatening 
fate of Phoenicia, and the whole section could be considered as an 
Isaianic prophecy and could plausibly be assigned to the period of 
the five-year siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser IV between 727 and 723 
related by Josephus.s But the text is as difiicult with 3^3^53 
as with D^'niUS. What could be the significance of "]»! behold? 
Certainly the devastation of Canaan was nothing new. Ewald also 
noticed the absence of the loftiness, the splendor, and the brevity of 
Isaiah, and consequently assigned the verses to a younger disciple 
of Isaiah. Others refer all of chap. 23 to the age if not to the author- 
ship of Jeremiah.^ Stade' places the entire chapter in the age of 
Alexander the Great. 

E. Meyer, followed by Duhm and Marti, changes d^'^*T233 of 
vs. 13 to D'^^nS Cyprians, and refers to vs. 12 for the reason. The 

I The Prophets 0} Israel 2,3Z- ^ Introd. to the Bh. 0} Isa. 141. 

sK. A. r.2 409 f. 

i Introd. to the Literature of the O. T.^ 219. 

s Ant. ix. 14.2.; so Ewald, Schrader, Kuenen, Dillman, Orelli, Cheyne, Driver. 

6 Hitzig, Bleak. 7 Gesch. des Volkes Isr. II. 208. 



50 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

emendation is not an easy one but probably correct. With a slight 
change the verse then reads : InbSl^b H^JTIJ T'^SID'H D^ri3 yiX "jn 
Behold the land of the Kittim he has laid waste, to a heap of ruins he 
made it (Marti). The rest of the verse is a gloss {vide supra). One 
more emendation, first proposed by Duhm and adopted by Marti 
and Cornill, and it seems to me we have the original meaning of 
the passage. This is "122 to "j'llS ("IIT'^S) Sidon in vss. i and 
8. This is an easy emendation and is altogether probable since in 
vss. 2, 4, 12 Sidon is certainly meant. This gives unity and meaning 
to the section, finding its full explanation in the historic situation 
of the destruction of Sidon by Ochus in 348, into which history it 
fits perfectly {vide supra). Then we have not a prophecy but an 
elegy composed upon the destruction of Sidon. It is easy to see how 
a later writer, the one who added vss. 15-18, would adapt the elegy 
to a prophecy against Tyre. He also changed "jhll to 122 in vss. 
I and 8, and so made out of the elegy upon Sidon a 122 ^1W2 burden 
of Tyre. Vs. 5 is a prosaic gloss whose contents has no connection 
with the poem.^ That Tyre was not meant originally is clear from 
the fact that it was thrice besieged, five years under Shalmaneser- 
Sargon, again under Asarhaddon-Assur-banipal, and thirteen years by 
Nebuchadrezzar, but not conquered till under Alexander in 332. 
On the other hand we know that Sidon was the first city of Phoenicia 
in the Persian period.^ At no time during the life of Isaiah was 
it destroyed.3 The translation of 122 as "Phoenicia" is rendered 
impossible by vs. 12.4 Likewise the view of Cheyne, Guthe, and 
Kittel, that the elegy dates from Isaiah as a prophecy against Tyre, 
worked over by a later hand, must be abandoned. The passage 
is not a prophecy and its diction and ideas are too foreign to those of 
Isaiah (Duhm). Cheyne^ points out Isaianic ideas and phraseology 
and then adds what seem to him non-Isaianic features, which, how- 
ever, seem to predominate. The passage may be accepted without 
hesitancy as an elegy upon the destruction of Sidon (Marti) in 348, 
and may confidently be received as a reliable source for the reign 
of Ochus. 

I Duhm, Cheyne, Marti. =" Herodotus vii. 98; viii. 67. 

3 Cf. Pietschmann Gesch. der Phoenizier 302-6; Meyei Gesch. des AUertums I. 595. 

4 Guthe in Kautzsch Bibel'. s Op. cit. 142. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 



51 



(2) Isa. 19:1-15 [16-25]. ^'^.IV^ ^^^ The Oracle concerning 
Egypt, another of the ten oracles of Isa., chaps. 13-27. As in chap. 23, 
so we have here an original section, vss. 1-15, and a later addition, 
vss. 16-25. Tradition indeed accepted the entire chapter as Isaianic. 
Scholars long accepted this view and sought to find a place in history 
for the chapter. Ewald^ accepted the chapter as Isaianic but noticed 
difficulties in the differences. He described it as Isaiah's last and 
noblest ''testament to posterity," probably because of the grand 
cathohcity of the picture with which the chapter closes, namely that 
both Assyria, the Hfe-long oppressor of Judah, and Egypt should turn 
to Jahwe and be on an equahty with Israel in the kingdom of God. 
Ewald thinks the chapter consistent with the period after 701, after 
Egypt was defeated by Sennacherib.^ Driver considers it a plausible 
conjecture to place it in connection with the defeat of Egypt by 
Sargon at Raphia in 720.3 

That vss. 16-25 do not form a part of the original section, vss. 
1-15, was shown already by Hitzig, who thought them to come from 
the hand of Onias in his own interest, at the time of the founding 
of the Onias temple in LeontopoHs, ca. 160 b. c, according to Jo- 
sephus.4 The alHance of Syria, Israel, and Egypt the writer hoped 
to be reahzed through the successes of Judas Maccabaeus. Hitzig 
later considered vss. 21-25 ^s purely imaginative. His earHer view 
was adopted by Duhm. The section cannot be Isaianic, for vs. 16 
would be a direct denial of his predictions, and at the time these 
verses were written Judah must have had reason for hoping to become 
a menace to Egypt and to stand alongside with it and Syria. The 
five cities speaking the language of Canaan, among them LeontopoHs, 
the altar and the pillar, the hope that Egypt will turn to Jahwe, all 
indicate that this prophecy dates from the middle of the second cen- 
tury. Duhm sees in the friendship which shall arise between Egypt 
and Syria, and which shall include Judah, the marriage of Alexander 
Balas with the daughter of Ptolemy Philometer at which Jonathan 
clothed in purple was present (I Mac. 10: 51-56). The glorification 
of the temple of LeontopoHs and of the Jewish generals indicates 

I Hist, of Isr. II. 267 f. 2 So also Stade, Dillman, Kuenen. 

3 Guthe in Kauizsch Bibel places it at 715. 

4 Ant. xiii. 3. i. 



52 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

that the author was an Egyptian Jew. Hence it is that there is no 
reference to the return of the Diaspora and to the hostility toward 
the gentiles. That the history of the time is put into the form of 
prediction is in harmony with the literary style of the time. Marti 
agrees with Duhm that the time of the founding of the Onias temple, 
i6o B. c, affords the best historic explanation of these verses. He 
regards vss. 16-25 ^s a unity, intended to limit or to cancel the im- 
pression of vss. 1-15 for Egyptian readers, and at the same time 
as a message from the Egyptian Jews to the Egyptians to turn to 
Jahwe and to rejoice over the blessings of the Jewish religion in the 
triple alliance with Judah and Syria. 

Cheyne is certain that vss. 16-25 ^^^ ^ot Isaianic, for (a) the 
prophecy, vss. 1-15, is from a literary point of view complete without 
an appendix, (b) The tone of these verses is entirely different from 
the first part. There is a strong contrast between the two parts. 
The first is the sternest threatening, the second has a more sym- 
pathetic tone toward Egypt than is found in any other part of the 
Old Testament, even a conversion of Egypt to the true God. (c) 
To a Jew of Isaiah's time the conversion of Assyria, not of Egypt, 
was of primary interest. The conversion of the less dangerous 
neighbor is not a conceivable idea of Isaiah, (d) The circumstantial 
description in vss. 18-25 (vss. 16 and 17 link the original prophecy 
with the addition) is contrary to the prophetic genius of Isaiah. 
(e) There are no stylistic indications of Isaiah. The style is prosaic. 
The Isaianic expressions only indicate that the writer was acquainted 
with Isaiah.^ But Cheyne, and with him Cornill, thinks it impossible 
that vss. 16-25 can come from so late a date as 160, since such an 
addition could not have been accepted into the text of the Palestinian 
synagogue so late. This objection is, however, not insurmountable 
since the canon was not closed till after that time. While the pro- 
phetic collection already existed pretty much in its present form 
about 200 B. c, still the possibility of much later additions is not 
ruled out.^ The group of prophecies, Isa., chaps. 13-27, can hardly 
have been collected before the close of the second century b. c.^ 

1 Op. cit. 99-101. 

2 K. Budde Art. "Canon" in E. B. I. §39 and n. i. 

3 Marti op. cit. p. xvi. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 53 

Cheyne thinks the author considered inirp D^'plill the cruel 
lord, as Ochus, or with LXX KvpCaav o-kXtjpoov hard lords, as 
Ochus and the other Persian kings who conquered Egypt, namely 
Cambyses and Xerxes. The passage can be explained only by the 
history of the Greek period under the first four Ptolemies. When the 
empire of Alexander was divided, Egypt fell to Ptolemy Lagi who 
in 320 added to it Phoenicia and Coelo-Syria with the territory of 
Judah. Antigonus received Syria and Asia Minor. Southern 
Syria remained disputed ground. The people of Judah suffered 
harsh treatment from Ptolemy. Many captives from Judah and 
Samaria were carried away to Egypt. ^ Many Jews also went of 
their own accord, invited by the goodly country and the liberality 
of Ptolemy toward them in Alexandria. So far the verses contain 
recent history. Now follows a look into the future. Egypt shall 
turn to Jahwe. A highway from Egypt to Syria shall be opened. 
Israel shall be the link between the Seleucides and the Ptolemies. 
All shall serve Jahwe and from the three allied peoples spiritual Kght 
will radiate. Hence he concludes that the addition is the work of 
an Egyptian Jew ca. 275. Cornill^ considers it inconceivable that 
the verses could date from an earlier time than the settling of Jews 
in Egypt by Ptolemy Lagi, 323-285. 

From the examination of vss. 16-25 ^^ ^3,y confidently afiirm 
that they are not Isaianic and that they are from a later writer than 
vss. 1-15. It remains yet to examine vss. 1-15 to find as nearly as 
possible their origin and date. While Hitzig dated vss. 16-25 ^^ ^^o 
he held firmly to the Isaianic authorship of vss. 1-15. Eichhorn 
first denied the authorship of Isaiah. The non-Isaianic authorship 
is now held by Duhm, Smend, Kittel, Cornill, and Marti. But for 
what reason? First let us ascertain whether vss. 1-15 are a unity. 
As in chapter 23 so we have here three strophes, vss. 1-4, 5-10, and 
11-15, and not of regular formation. Neither is each strophe a 
unit idea. The first is a unity: Jahwe stirs up civil war in Egypt, 
robs the Egyptians of all reason and delivers them into the power of 
a severe and cruel foreigner. The next two strophes, on the other 
hand, form a unit idea together: vss. 5-10, the drjdng up of the Nile 
and the woe of fishermen and weavers, and vss. 1 1-15, the insufiiciency 

I Jos. Ani. xii. i. 2 Einl. in das A. T. 171. 



54 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

and helplessness of the Egyptian wisdom. Cheyne therefore sepa- 
rates vss. 5-10 as obstructing the connection, and considers them 
from a later hand.^ The evidence, however, is not convincing since 
the connection between the first and third strophe is scarcely any 
closer.^ We may therefore accept the entire section as a unit. 

That the section cannot come from Isaiah is evident (a) from a 
lack of any historic connection with Judah, any political motive for 
the threats uttered, for the older prophets always connected their 
messages with some contemporary event in history, (b) Many 
ideas are not Isaianic : The ride of Jahwe on a swift cloud to Egypt, 
vs. I, is almost unique in prophecy. The theoretically established 
monotheism and the comparison of the Jewish religious teaching 
with the Egyptian wisdom, vss. 3 and 12, is unlike Isaiah. The 
plan of Jahwe is already a subject of learned wisdom, vs. 12 (Marti). 
Would Isaiah have spoken of D'^'nii^ 11^1 the spirit of Egypt, vs. 3, 
and have shown the anxiety for the fishermen and weavers of Egypt, 
vss. 5-10, a calamity in no way political (Duhm)? (c) The arrangement 
and style is not Isaianic. Would Isaiah have used D'^'^12^ six times 
in the first five lines ? Cheyne^ at first pronounced the section the 
work of a disciple of Isaiah on the basis of Isaiah's notes. Then he 
concluded that the whole section is later than Isaiah but still held 
to the Isaianic basis, and thought the !mcp '0^^1i^_ none other than 
Sargon who defeated the Egyptians at Raphia in 720. Later he 
asserts "I can now find no sure traces of an Isaianic substratum." 

That Isaiah cannot have been the author of vss. 1-15 is certainly 
evident. Into what other period then does the section belong? 
Cheyne^ thinks of Cambyses who conquered Psammetich III in 
525, and of Xerxes who reconquered Egypt. Either one can rightly 
be called niT}^ D"'DliS|. The section belongs in "the long Persian 
period, but nothing compels us to descend as far as Artaxerxes 
Ochus." Vss. 5-10 are not later than 485. Judging from the 
cruelty of Ochus in Phoenicia and Judea, he thinks it difficult to 
see how a Jew could have written so coldly and so indifferently of 
the final campaign against Egypt. Duhm, on the other hand, and 
with him Marti and Cornill, rightly think of Artaxerxes III, Ochus, 

' Op. cit. no, III. 3 Op. cit. 113, 114. 

» Marti op. cit. 155. 4 Op. cit. 118, 119. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 5$ 

who conquered Nectanebus II in 343 {vide supra). Into this period 
the separate allusions fit correctly. Civil strife and sudden change 
of dynasties, vs. 2, discord in miUtary operations, revolts and con- 
fusion, all were common in those days. The epithet HXDp D^'DH^^ 
fits Ochus better than anyone else in the history of Persia (vide 
supra, pp. 44, 45), The section was probably written in Egypt 
.sometime between the destruction of Sidon in 348 and the recon- 
quest of Egypt, 343, as "an elegy upon the punishment of Egypt 
through Ochus" (Marti), and may be accepted as another reliable 
source for the history of the reign of Ochus. 

(3) Isa. 14:28-32, ril2Jb3 iX^')2 The Oracle concerning Philistia. 
This prophecy of four strophes of four lines each bears the heading, 
"In the year of the death of king Ahaz^ was this Oracle." Were 
this reliable, then both authorship and date would be fixed, namely 
that we have a prophecy from Isaiah in the year 721. But the late 
i^^^tri points to the redactor of Isa., chaps. 13-27, which contains 
the ten oracles concerning foreign nations. To substitute IS'^H the 
word for 5^1B!ajl, following prjjxa of the LXX (Cheyne) does not 
stand, for prj^ia is found for i^iSX!?! also in 15:1 and 17:1 where 
13'^tl could not stand. That the heading cannot be correct as it 
now reads is admitted even by those who claim the Isaianic author- 
ship of the prophecy. 

Two dates within the time of Isaiah were thought of as forming 
a reasonable background for the prophecy. One of these is the year 
720, where the prophecy would refer to the disturbances in Syria 
and Palestine, which followed the defeat of Sargon by the Elamites, 
the allies of Merodach Baladan, in which Assyria lost its most prized 
possession, Babylon.^ This is an attempt to bring the event as near 
as possible into harmony with the heading. The inference rests 
upon the Babylonian chronicle.^ The inscriptions of Sargon are 
silent on this point. The other date is 705,* the year of Sargon's 
death. In this case T2Jn5 a serpent, vs. 29, would refer to Sargon, and 
jr|Si3>53 C|"l*®, a fiery flying serpent, to Sennacherib. The Philistines 

^ 733-721- 

» Cheyne op. cit. 80, 81; cf. Winckler Untersuchungen 135-137. 

3 B, col. I, 11. 33-35. 

4 Guthe Kautzsch Bibel wavers between this date and 711. 



$6 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

might naturally rejoice over the death of Sargon, who had defeated 
Hanno of Gaza at Raphia in 720, and captured Ashdod in 711. That 
Sennacherib severely punished the PhiHstines is clear from his in- 
scriptions.' Others have thought of the time of Tiglath-Pileser III 
(745-727) and Shalmaneser IV (726-722)/ and still others thought 
the time of Shalmaneser and Sargon most suited to the prophecy. 
Thus far all points to Isaiah as the author of the prophecy. Of all 
the dates mentioned 705 seems the most likely to be the correct one. 
The inviolabiHty of Zion, vs. 32, certainly is an Isaianic idea. So 
also is the sympathy for the poor, vs. 30, so that the prophecy finds 
a reasonable explanation in the Assyrian period and may plausibly 
be claimed for Isaiah. 

But is there not another period in which the prophecy finds even 
a more perfect explanation? Duhm thinks of the period after the 
battle of Issos, 333, and before the capture of Tyre and Gaza by 
Alexander the Great, as the situation best explaining the prophecy, 
and refers to the suffering of the Philistines during the reign of the 
last Persian kings, in their conflict with Egypt, as sufficient ground 
for rejoicing over the downfall of Persia. The phrase i52^ ""^i^j 
the poor of his people, is decidedly postexilic in appearance. Marti 
agrees with Duhm and thinks the allusion points to the reign of 
Ochus as the cause of the hatred against the Persians on part of the 
Philistines. Cheyne also holds this view now.^ But did Philistia 
suffer such severe violence at the hand of the Persians ? And, if so, 
did not, as we have seen before, Judah suffer mistreatment at that 
time so that Zion was not any more a place of refuge for the afflicted ? 
Yet the predominating evidence points toward this time. If accepted, 
then the prophecy throws confirming fight upon the historic evidence 
of the cruelty of Ochus in his western campaigns. 

(4) Isa., chaps. 24-27, a singular production without any head- 
ing, which later critics agree in assigning to another age than Isaiah's. 
Already Ewald'^ claimed only a part of it for Isaiah, namely 26:6-8, 
chaps. 10 and 11, 27:9-13, as Isaianic. Defitzsch,s in the first three 

I Driver Life and Times of Isa. 67 f. 

» So W. R. Smith The Proph. of Isr. 319, and Kuenen and Driver. 

3 Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,197. 

4 Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott III. 444. 

s 1866 f. For his latest view vide infra, p. 58. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 57 

editions of his commentary, says that it is arbitrary to deny the author- 
ship of Isaiah of an entire section fundamentally, and in a thousand 
details Isaianic, simply because of its peculiarities. J. Bredencamp^ 
regards the main portion Isaianic with some lyrical parts as later 
insertions. As late as 1891 W. E. Barnes thought it necessary to 
publish a learned " Examination of the Objections brought against 
the Genuineness of Isa., chaps. 24-27." Two years later C. H. H. 
Wright^ found "nothing really opposed to the Isaianic authorship." 

Among the reasons for rejecting the Isaianic authorship the fol- 
lowing may be mentioned as conclusive r^ (a) The section lacks a 
suitable historical occasion in Isaiah's time. There is no period in 
the Assyrian history into which it really fits well. The situation 
is certainly not that of any of the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah. 

(b) The social and rehgious circumstances described are those of a 
time in which priests constitute the most important class, 24:2, 
pointing to the time after the priestly law-book had become canonical. 

(c) The ideas and ideals are not those of Isaiah. In Isaiah the 
remnant which escapes is saved in Judah or Jerusalem, 4:3; here 
the voices of the redeemed are first heard from distant quarters of 
the earth, 24:14-16.4 The extension of rehgious privileges to all 
peoples, 25:6, is characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah and later times. 
The hope of the resurrection of individual Israehtes, 26:19, is cer- 
tainly not Isaianic. (d) The linguistic and styHstic representation 
is in many respects unHke that of Isaiah. It is more artificial and 
characterized by many unusual expressions. The many similarities 
can easily be accounted for by the writer's famiharity with and 
imitation of Isaiah. " One cannot think of a greater contrast than 
these chapters and the undoubted authentic speeches of Isaiah."s 
Not only do these arguments point to a post-Isaianic period, but as 
well to a postexilic time. It only remains to determine how far down 
we are to go. 

The question of the literary unity must first be considered before 
that of authorship can be settled. Already Ewald rightly recog- 
nized that 25:1-5 breaks the connection between 24:23 and 25:6. 

1 Commentar, 1886, 1887, ad. loc. 

2 Art. "Isaiah" in Smith's B. D. 18932. 4 Driver Introd. 221. 

3 Cf. Cheyne op. cit. 147-54- s Cornill op. cit. 173. 



58 ARTAXERXES UI OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Then the problem was left to rest for a long time, until Duhm rightly 
continued in the same direction and reached the conclusion that 
24:1-23, 25:6-8, 26:20-21, 27:1, 12-13, form an apocalypse which 
constitutes the groundwork of chaps. 24-2 7. This apocalypse describes 
the approaching of the desolation of a great world-empire by war, 
closing with the judgment of Jahwe over angels and kings. Upon this 
follows the descent of Jahwe upon Zion in visible glory where the 
divine throne is set up in the holy city. Judah shall hide itself till the 
storm has destroyed the three world-powers, 27:1, after which the 
Syrian and Egyptian diaspora will join her. The remaining portions 
he considers as late accretions and of a lyrical nature. Chap. 25, 
vss. 1-5, is a song in commemoration of the destruction of a strong 
citadel on account of which a city of strong people will honor and 
fear God; 25:9-11, an isolated taunting song of Moab; 26: 1-19, with 
25 : 12, a unique artistic poem; and 27 : 2-5, a little song. Concerning 
the hortatory verses, 27:7-11, he has some hesitancy. Cheyne and 
Cornill agree with Duhm in this analysis. So also does Marti, who 
establishes more definitely 27:7-11 as an accretion. 

Hence we have not a single work written in twelve strophes of the 
same hexameter movement as C. A. Briggs^ states, but "a mosaic of 
passages in different styles by several writers,"^ as Duhm has con- 
clusively shown. A further division was attempted by J. Boehmer^ 
into two different groups, namely, 24:1-23; 25:6-8 and 26:9-21; 
27:1, 12, 13. This, however, increases the difficulty of finding a 
suitable situation, especially for the second group, and affords no 
advantage. From what has been said it is clear that chaps. 24-27 
are not Isaianic and that they are not a unity. It remains to find a 
later period of history for a suitable background, both for the ground- 
work and for the accretions. 

At least three postexilic periods were thought of before a Hterary 
analysis was worked out. (a) The early Persian period. So Ewald, 
Dehtzsch,4 and Dillmann, 1890. Driver formerly claimed the 
Isaianic authorship, but now places the chapters between 536 and 
440. Oorts pleads for a date in the fifth century but before the 

1 Messianic Prophecies 295. 

2 Cheyne op. cit. 295. 4 Messianische Weissagungen, 1890, 143 f. 

3 1897. 5 Theol. Tijdschr., 1886, 186-94. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 59 

governorship of Nehemiah, chiefly on the ground that by the time of 
Nehemiah the land of Moab must have become Nabataean. This 
argument, however, a£fects only 25:9-11 and not the groundwork. 
Guthe^ thinks there is no certainty of time to be ascribed, but feels 
certain that it is at all events postexilic, and inclines to the reign of 
Ochus. This period has some points in its favor. The fact that 
historical data in the chapters are so few, makes it difficult to decide 
definitely. If placed here, then the references are to the troubles of 
the warlike reigns of Cambyses and Darius I {vide supra). In this 
case "the city," 24:10, 12; 25:2; 26:5, 6; 27:10, is Babylon, a con- 
clusion which is by no means self-evident. Moreover it is difficult, 
if at all possible, to find anywhere between 536 and 464 any historical 
situation which will at all adequately explain the representation of 
chap. 24 and much in chap. 26. Cheyne^ adds this decisive argu- 
ment that in 24:5 there is an allusion to Gen. 9:3-6, 15, 16 and in 
24:18 to Gen. 7:11, both of which passages belong to P, so that 
chaps. 24-27 must be later than the reformation of Nehemiah and 
Ezra. (&) The late Persian period. This was the later view of 
Kuenen^ who formerly held that the author lived during the first 
part of the exile and that he predicted the fall of Babylon. Vatke,^ 
who had decided for the Maccabaean period, later placed the chapters 
after 348, the destruction of Sidon through Ochus. Kirkpatrick^ 
less definitely regards the fourth century as the time of the origin 
of the chapters, (c) In close connection with this period is the early 
Greek, where Stade^ finds an adequate background for the chapters. 
Smend^ inclines with Hilgenf eld^ to the time of the wars of Alexander 
after the conquest of Tyre in 332. The wars of Ochus, and later those 
of Alexander, are thought to be reflected in these chapters. "The 
city" would then have to be taken collectively and would refer to 
Sidon, Jerusalem, and Tyre. The long struggle of Egypt for in- 
dependence, beginning already under Artaxerxes Mnemon and con- 

1 Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 291 f. and Kautzsch Bihel. 

2 Op. cit. 154. 3 Onderzooh^ II. 99. 

4 Bihl. TheoL, 1835, 550; Einl. in das A. T., 1886, 623. 

5 The Doctrine 0} the Prophets, 1892, 475, f. 

6 Op. cit. I. 586. 7 Z. A. T. W., 1884, 161-224. 
8 Z. W. Th., 1866, 398-448. 



6o ARTAXERXES in OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

tinuing till the complete reconquest under Ochus in 343, could scarcely 
go on without much distress to Judah. 

It must be remembered that all the above-named critics saw no 
necessity for analyzing the chapters into component parts. They 
considered them essentially a unity. This was left for Duhm. And 
with him the problem of a correct date becomes a double one, first 
for the apocalypse and then for the later portions. That the ground- 
work is an apocalypse and not a prophecy may be accepted as cor- 
rect.^ Duhm thinks the external situation is that of despair; Jerusa- 
lem lies in ruins; the three world-powers, "the gliding serpent," "the 
winding serpent" and "the monster that is in the sea," 27:1, are the 
Parthians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians. The author of the 
apocalypse lived during the time of John Hyrcanus, 134-104. He 
saw the siege of Jerusalem, and the devastation of Judah through 
Antiochus VII, Sidetes; the beginning of the war with the Parthians 
in which the Jews were forced to take part, 129; the defeat and death 
of Antiochus, 128, who is obscurely mentioned in 24:i4-i6a. The 
lyrical portions are later. In 25 : 1-5 Duhm sees the exultation of the 
Jews over the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus between 
113 and 105, and the demolition of the temple on Mount Gerizim.^ 
"The city of terrible nations" is Rome. The same background is 
assumed for 26:1-19. Chap. 25, vss. 9-11, belongs in the time of 
Alexander Jannaeus, 135-105, who made the Moabites pay tribute.^ 

To this view of Duhm, Cheyne and Cornill see a grave objection 
in the history of the prophetic canon which they consider practically 
closed at 200 b. c. Cheyne^* argues that a strong reason is required 
for making any considerable part of Isaiah later than 200 b. c.s 
But the history of the canon rests upon the internal or textual evidence 
largely and not the existence of the text on the canon. Other portions 
of Isaiah are evidently as late as the last years of the second century 
B. c. {vide supra) . Cheyne finds a satisfactory background for the 
apocalypse in the period of the long-continued desolating wars over 
Syria and Palestine during the reigns of Artaxerxes Mnemon and 
of Ochus in the long struggles of Egypt for independence, ending 

I So Duhm, Cheyne, Marti, Cornill. 2 Cf. Schiirer op. cit. I. 277. 

3 Jos. Ant. xiii. 13. 5. 4 Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,202. 

5 Cf. Budde Art. "Canon" in E. B. I, §39 and n. i- 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 6 1 

in the consolidation of the powers of the Ptolemies in Palestine in 301. 
The frequent march of Persian armies to Egypt must have caused 
much distress to the Jews. He sees in chap. 24 a monument of the 
prolonged misery of the time. The city or cities of destruction, 
vs. 10, may allude to Sidon and Jerusalem. In 27:10, 11 is a des- 
cription of the condition of Jerusalem in or soon after 347. The 
hope that is held out to the Jews is the overthrow of the Persian power 
through Alexander the Great; the ghttering weapons of whose troops 
were already appearing on the distant horizon. Hence the date of 
the apocalypse would be about the year 334. Cornill regards the 
apocalypse to date from ca. 330, only a few years later than Cheyne, 
following Stade and Smend. 

The lyrical portions Cheyne assigns to the early years of Alexander 
the Great, immediately after the fall of Tyre, as the most probable 
date. The liturgical poem, 26: 1-19, may describe the feelings of the 
pious community of Jews, when their city had been spared by the 
army of Alexander, deeply grateful for this, yet painfully conscious 
of the ruin wrought by the tyrant Ochus. The gap made by the 
deportation to Hyrcania was still felt."^ 

It must be admitted that much in the apocalypse finds an ex- 
planation in the closing years of the Persian empire. In the way of 
accepting this date stands 24: 10, for to take "the city" to mean Sidon 
and Jerusalem is difficult. Evidence is lacking for any humihation 
of Moab at this time such as 25:9-11 represents {vide supra). Was 
Tyre ever "the lofty city," 26:5, over whose bringing low the Jews 
would have any occasion to rejoice? From what we know of the 
time of John Hyrcanus and of the closing years of the Persian period, 
the predominating evidence seems to point in favor of the former 
for the chapters under consideration. Perhaps if we knew what we 
do not know of each period the order might be reversed. 

Not only the latest but as well the clearest treatment of the chapters 
is that of Marti, ^ who in the main follows Duhm. He considers the 
apocalypse to embrace {a) 24:1-23, the revolution of the globe, the 
judgment over the powers in heaven and on earth, and Jahwe estab- 
lishing his throne in Zion; (&) 25 : 6-8, the feast of Jahwe for all people 

1 Op. cit. 155-160; cf. Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 

2 Op. cit. 182-202. 



62 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

in Zion; (c) 26 : 20 — 27 : i, the security of the Jews during the judgment 
of the world; and (d) 27:12-13 the gathering of all Jews to the 
homage of Jahwe in Zion and to the participation in the kingdom of 
God. The apocalypse is characterized by its deep ethical grasp and 
its human feeling. It is a humane spirit that expresses itself here: 
the people experience in contrast with the world-rulers coming into 
judgment (24:21, 22; 27:1) divine compassion, 25:6-8; yet this mag- 
nificent universahsm is not altogether free from the particularism 
of the ordinary Judaism which, however, receives a certain prerogative. 

That the apocalypse originated in a late time cannot be denied. 
Aside from the Aramaic form ^'IH hide thyself, 26 : 20, the theological 
conceptions which have their parallels in the latest portions of the 
Old Testament, in the Jewish literature of the last two centuries of 
the pre-Christian era, as also in the later centuries, and in the New 
Testament, point to a late time. This appears (a) from the taking 
prisoner of the host on high and the rulers on earth, 24:21-22; (6) 
from the appearance of Jahwe in splendor and glory in Zion, 24:23; 
(c) from the feast of the peoples in Zion 25 : 6-8; (d) from the security 
of the Jews, in the judgment of the world, 26:20; and (e) from the 
great trumpet with which the signal for assembling will be given, 27: 
13. The more definite time of origin can be determined from the 
reference of the apocalyptist to the situation of the world: Jeru- 
salem has not yet recovered from the conquest of Antiochus VII, 
Sidetes, at the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanu^ I (134- 
114), 24:7-12; the death of Antiochus Sidetes in the campaign 
against the Parthians, 128, awakes among the Jews of the uttermost 
parts of the earth the highest hopes, but the apocalyptist expects, 
although Judea had now become free, the entrance of "the robbers," 
i. e., the Parthians and, in connection therewith, the judgment of 
the world long since predicted by the prophets, in which first of all 
the three world-powers, the Parthians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians, 
will be destroyed. From all this Marti concludes with Duhm that 
the apocalypse originated shortly after 128 b. c. and that the author 
is to be sought in the ranks of the Chasidim who expected help alone 
from God. 

The secondary elements Marti enumerates as follows: (a) 25:1-5, 
the hymn on the destruction of Samaria, dating from ca. 107; (b) 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 63 

25:9-11, a song of thanksgiving for achieved victory and the hope 
of the certain overthrow of Moab, from the last years of John Hyr- 
canus or of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus; (c) 26:1-19, the praise 
of God for the victory granted the righteous in the overthrow of 
Samaria and for the salvation promised for the future, from the same 
time as {a); (d) 25:2-5, a poem: Israel the vineyard of Jahwe, 
probably from the same time as (a) and (c) ; and (e) 27 : 7-1 1, the last 
condition for the approach of the day of salvation, an incitement 
for the complete destruction of Samaria, hence from the time between 
the writing of the apocalypse and the fall of Samaria, 1 28-1 11, by an 
author to be sought among the Sadducees.^ 

These chapters consequently cannot be accepted as historical 
sources for the reign of Ochus. 

(5) Isa. 32 : 1-20, a part of the group of prophecies, chaps. 28-33, 
the bulk of which dates from the closing years of Isaiah, namely from 
the years of the league between Hezekiah and Egypt. This chapter, 
accepted by Hitzig and Ewald as Isaianic, was by Kuenen assigned 
with hesitancy to the reign of Josiah or somewhat later. Driver holds 
to the Isaianic authorship, and likewise Duhm, except for vss. 6-8 
which he considers as very general sayings spoken by a theolgian, 
not by a poHtician. Both place the chapter in the closing years of 
Isaiah. Stade^ first declared the chapter non-Isaianic, and was 
followed by Guthe, Cheyne, Marti, and Cornill. Cheyne pointed 
out in vss. 1-8 alone, among other reasons, eighteen or nineteen words 
which do not occur at all or at least not in the same sense, in the 
generally acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah, and places them in the 
fifth century. He agrees with Duhm in separating vss. 9-14 and 
15-20 as by a different writer and inclines to find the historic back- 
ground for both groups in the oppression of the Jews by Artaxerxes 
Ochus, though he admits that it is not necessary to come down so 
far. Duhm considers no argument yet produced sufficient to call the 
chapter, except vss. 6-8, non-Isaianic. Marti takes vss. 1-5 and 
156-20 together as a portrayal of the prosperity of the Messianic time 
parallel with Isa. 11:1-8, with which the collector of chaps. 28-31 
wished to close the group. Because of the similarity with the prover- 

I Op. cit. 201-2, a free rendering. 

2Z. A. T. W., 1884, 256-71. _ .. 



64 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

bial literature he dates the sections in the Greek period. Vss. 9-14 
are parallel with 3 : 16 — 4:1 and, Hke that, should precede the portrayal 
of the Messianic happiness before 32:1, and probably date from the 
same time as the other sections, while vss. 6-8 evidently come from 
the years 168-165, the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes. 

(6) Isa. 33:1-24, the future happiness of the capital Jerusalem 
rescued from danger. Already Ewald pronounced the chapter non- 
Isaianic and ascribed it to a disciple of Isaiah in the last years of 
Hezekiah. Kuenen, with hesitation, inclined to the reign of Josiah or 
a little later. But there was no church at that time such as is implied 
in chap. 33. Driver dates the chapter a year later than chap. 32, 
namely 701, while all other later critics accept the postexiUc date. 
Cheyne gives the argument for this at some length,^ and ascribes 
the chapter to the second half of the Persian period, possibly though 
not necessarily in the reign of Ochus. The educated Jews of that 
time, he says, "had two special consolations or recreations: first, 
they dwelt in imagination in the glorious future which the deepening 
gloom did but bring nearer, and, next, they enriched the extant 
prophetic records with insertions and appendices, expressive of their 
own hopes and aspirations."^ 

A better solution is that of Duhm and Marti who call the chapter 
an apocalyptic poem and place it, the one in the year 162 under 
Antiochus Eupator, the other a year eariier. Marti calls the chapter 
" a poem of consolation from that unfortunate time." Cornill agrees 
that the chapter is apocalyptic, later than chap. 32, and sees in it a 
fitting close for the group of prophecies reflecting the time of Senna- 
cherib. Bickell^ found by rearranging the text two Maccabaean 
poems, one a prayer to Jahwe for help after a defeat, the other an 
acrostic poem on Simon, probably of the year 142, after the entrance 
into Jerusalem dehvered by the Syrians. While such a rearrangement 
is not at all impossible, the gain therefrom is scarcely sufficient to 
justify it. 

Hence there is nothing of sufficient definiteness in chaps. 32 and 
33 bearing on the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus to justify their accept- 
ance as historic sources for that period. 

(7) Isa., chaps. 56-66, the so-called Trito-Isaiah. It is only 
I Op. cit. 163-73. 2 Ihid. 172. 3 Z. K. M., 1897. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 6$ 

within recent years that these chapters were separated from chaps. 
40-55. That they form a separate group of prophecies from those 
of chaps. 40-55 is now rightly the prevaihng opinion. A brief 
general summary of the history of the criticism of chaps. 56-66 will 
be helpful in determining their true place in history. There are 
essentially four periods to which the chapters have been assigned, 
not to mention the writers who claim them for Isaiah.' 

a) First in connection with Isa., chaps. 40-55, known as Deutero- 
Isaiah, in the last years of the exile, not as a separate group of 
prophecies, but as a part of Deutero-Isaiah, or, at the utmost, as 
additions by the same or another author or authors. Thus Ewald 
considered chaps. 58-59 as borrowed by Deutero-Isaiah from a con- 
temporary of Ezekiel, and 63 : 7 — 66 : 1-24 as added by the same author 
after the return from the exile. Dillman placed chaps. 40-48 at 
ca. 545, chaps. 49-62 from 545-538, and chaps. 63-66 as an appendix 
at the time of the edict of Cyrus. Kuenen regarded chaps. 40-49, 
52:1-12 and perhaps also 52:13 — 53:12 as the prophecy of the 
restoration, and the rest he ascribed on internal grounds to an author 
or authors in Palestine after the return from the exile, either Deutero- 
Isaiah himself or subsequent writers belonging to the same school. 
Stade^ accepted the chapters as from one author writing at the clqse 
of the exile, but recognized the incongruity of chaps. 54 f . with the 
preceding. These were worked over and additions from the same 
and later times were made : 

Dass diese Capitel auf einen und denselben am Ende des Exils weissagenden 
Mann zuriickzufiihren seien, trifft wenigstens im Wesentlichen das Richtige, 
da die Weissagungen dieses Mannes des Abschnittes Jes Capp 40-66 bilden. 
Einzelne der in ihm stehende Abschnitte erklaren sich jedoch nicht aus den 
Zeitverhaltnissen am Ausgange des Exils oder sprengen den Zusammenhang. 

Zuweilen liegt auch beides vor Deshalb wird zunachst an Ueberar- 

beitungen oder Einschaltungen fremder, friihestens gleichzeitiger Stiicke zu 
denken sein, und erst, wo hierdurch die vorhandenen Ratsel nicht gelost werden, 
an Einschaltungen alterer. (S. 70). 

Wildeboer^ agrees that chaps. 40-48 were written in Babylon but 
claims that the greater part of chaps. 49-62 presupposes a writer 

1 Hengstenberg, Havernitz, Drechsler, Delitzsch3, Stier, Keil, Lohr, Rutgers, 
Himpel, Nagelsbach, Douglas, W. H. Cobb. 

2 Op. cit. II. 68-94. 3 De Letterhunde, Gar. Transl. §17. 



66 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

living in Palestine, at the same time as the author of chaps. 40-48. 
In chaps. 63-66 alone does he find the marks of a later hand. Even 
these loosely connected fragments may as far as their contents are 
concerned come from the same prophet, but not in their present 
form. A pecuhar view, and one which remained practically his own, 
is that of Bredencamp who takes a middle ground, claiming a nucleus 
of genuine Isaianic passages in chaps. 40-66 which were ampHfied 
and published by a prophet of the period of the exile. J. Ley' con- 
siders chaps. 40-66 as one continuous work dominated by a unity of 
spirit, hence from one author, and written during a period of from 
thirty to thirty-five years from the advances of Cyrus toward 
western Asia till the second year of Darius Hystaspis. Driver^ and 
Orelli^ call chaps. 40-66 one continuous prophecy from toward the 
close of the exile, deaHng throughout with a common theme, namely 
Israel's restoration from exile in Babylon, and all from one author. 
With this view J. Skinner'^ agrees in the main, though not without 
due recognition of the possibility of a later date for chaps. 56-66, 
inclining to the eve of the great reformation under Nehemiah. 

b) The second period is that between the return and the building 
of the temple, 538-520. It will be remembered that none of the 
authorities mentioned in (a) hold to a separation of chaps. 40-55 and 
56-66. This division was first made by Marti^ in an investigation 
suggested to him in a conversation with Duhm, who afterwards 
worked out the problem fully.^ E. SelHn^ considers this division 
absolutely estabhshed and feels certain that chaps. 56-66 were 
written in Palestine. In an earlier work^ he thought to have estab- 
lished the fall of Zerubbabel and a destruction of the second temple 
between 515 and 500, and thought of the period following this as the 
time of origin for these chapters. In his later investigation he aban- 
dons this view and finds the period 538-520 the best background 

I Hist. Erkldrung 157. ' Introd. 230 f. 

3 Der Prophet Jesaia, 19043, 141-45. 

4 Isa., chaps. 40-66 in Canib. Bible, 1898. 

5 Der Proph. Sack, der Zeitgenosse Serubbabels, 1892, 40, 41, n. 

6 "Jesaia" iZ". K. A. T. 

7 Die Restauration der Jild. Cemeinde in den Jahren 538-516, 1901, 124-53. 

8 Serubbabel, 1899. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 67 

for the prophecy as a whole, and bases his conclusion upon the refer- 
ences: 63:18, 64:9, and 66:1-5. He finds nothing in the entire 
book that points with certainty to the existence of the temple before 
the composition of the prophecy. " So ist unser Resultat, dass zwar 
drei ganz konkrete Anhaltepunkte die Entstehung von Jes. Kap. 
56-66 zwischen 537 und 520 beweisen, dass aber kein eniziges Argu- 
ment existiert, welches die Abfassung nach dieser Zeit wahrscheinhch 
macht" (S. 147). As to the author he ventures no decision, but 
inchnes to Deutero-Isaiah returned from the Babylonian exile, and 
thinks we are not yet justified to speak of a Trito-Isaiah (i 50-1 51). 
Sellin stands alone in placing the entire prophecy in this period. 
Others place certain portions here, e. g., 63 : 7—64 : 1 2. So for instance 
H. Gressmann' and E. Littmann^ {vide infra). Cornills in earher 
editions of his Einleitung in das A. T. placed the prophecy before 
520, claiming that Haggai (2:7-9) borrowed from Trito-Isaiah, 
but in his sixth edition this view is abandoned {vide infra). 

c) The third period is the eve of the great reformation of Nehe- 
miah, shortly before 444. It is here where Duhm has rendered 
lasting services, for his placing the chapters in this period at once 
furnished the key to the interpretation of many otherwise dark and 
meaningless passages. Trito-Isaiah is for him a postexihc author, 
at a time when the Kahal or the Jewish religious community had 
long been estabhshed, Jerusalem inhabited, the temple built, yet 
everything in a pitiable condition. The leaders of the community 
avail nothing, the rich oppress the poor, on fast days there is con- 
tention and strife, the pious are no more. Jahwe has no instrument 
like Cyrus : he must with his own hand execute vengeance upon his 
enemies. These enemies are the heretics, the false brethren of the 
Jerusalem community upon whom the day of vengeance will come. 
They will be made an example before the pious for whom the day of 
salvation will appear. The sun and moon will be no more, wild 
beasts will be tame, men will Hve for several centuries. The temple 
will be ornamented with precious wood from Lebanon and enriched 
by the wealth of the nations. The Diaspora will return and the 
nations will unite themselves with the Jews. 

1 Ueber die in Jes. 54-66 vorausgesetzten zeitgeschicMichen Verhdltnisse, 1898. 

2 Ueber die Abfassungszeit des Tritojesaia, 1899. ^ Op. cit. 1984, i6i3. 



68 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Duhm considers the entire prophecy, except some minor additions, 
as the work of one author who was at the same time the redactor 
of chaps. 40-55, a theologian, and an apocalyptist, thoroughly imbued 
with theocratic ideas. The contrast between chaps. 40-55 and 
56-66 is very marked. The text of chaps. 55-66 is not well preserved 
and is full of glosses and additions. The original order is uncertain 
but it is probable that chaps. 61-66 preceded chaps. 56-60, since 
chap. 61 would make as good a beginning as chap. 60 would a close. 
It is possible that chaps. 56-66 were composed as an appendix to 
Deutero-Isaiah. Trito-Isaiah is at once a supplement to Malachi 
and a forerunner of the priest codex. 

Duhm soon had a large following. Smend^ first of all declared 
his full acceptance of the hypothesis. Cheyne calls the work the most 
important on the subject since the appearance of Ewald's Prophets, 
and accepts in the main the conclusion as to date. Chaps. 56-66, 
he says, contain no works of the second Isaiah, but, with the possible 
or probable exception of 63:7 — 64:12, which belong in the time of 
Artaxerxes Ochus {vide infra), belong to nearly the same period — 
that of Nehemiah. He rejects, however, the view that the book has 
anything like literary unity and that it is the work of one man. On 
the contrary it is the work of a number of different writers who fell 
under the literary spell of Deutero-Isaiah and loved to perpetuate 
his teaching and develop his ideas. He considers it practically 
certain that chaps. 60-62 are an appendix to chaps. 40-55, of which 
the original order probably was 61, 62, 60. While 56:9 — 57:13a 
belongs to the same period as the main portions, it shows in a special 
degree the influence of Ezekiel. To a still later time than 63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2 
belongs the outburst of bitter animosity in 66: 23, 24. It was signifi- 
cant that Wellhausen^ Hkewise accepted the conclusions of Duhm. 
" Dass Isa., Kap. 56 ss. nicht zu Kap. 40 ss. gehoren, sondern aus 
spaterer Zeit stammen, halte ich fiir erwiesen." Kosters^ agrees 
with Cheyne as to the position of chaps. 56-66, and with Duhm leaves 
63: 7 — 64: 12 in the same time. Marti, who has first called attention 
to the division between chaps. 40-55 and 56-66, agrees essentially, 

I AUtestamentliche Religionsgeschichte 339, n. 2. 
' Isr. u. Jud. Gesch.' 151, n. i; cf. 19045, 159, n. i. 
3 Theol. Tijdschr., 1896, 577-623. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 69 

both in his earlier works^ and in his Isaiah, with Duhm's treatment 
of the subject. Marti considers the chapters, aside from minor 
additions, as coming from one author who Hved in Jerusalem in the 
middle of the fifth century before the arrival of Nehemiah. E. 
Meyer^ considers this view from a historical standpoint correct. 
"Das Verstandniss des Schlusstheils des Jesaiabuches von Kap. 
56 an, des 'Tritojesaia' hat Duhm .... erschlossen" (120). 
H. Gressmann^ agrees with Duhm that chaps. 56-66 are on ground 
of thought content and language a separate work from Deutero- 
Isaiah and that all parts are postexihc (30, 26), and with Cheyne 
that the chapters are not a literary unity. "Tritojesaia ist keine 
einheitliche Schrift, sondern besteht aus vielen meistens zusammen- 
hanglosen Stucken" (26). Both Cheyne and Gressmann made a 
careful linguistic analysis and came to the same conclusion, namely, 
that these chapters are of different origin from chaps. 40-55. Gress- 
mann considers chaps. 56-66 as originating from Judea but no part 
as coming from Deutero-Isaiah. A more exact time than post- 
exihc is scarcely probable, even impossible (6), except for 66:1-4, 
which he places immediately before the building of the temple, 
where also 63 17 — 64:12 probably belongs. Of essentially the same 
opinion as Duhm is E. Littmann^ for whom the work is for the most 
part a unity, and from one author and from the years 457-455, 
except 63:7 — 64:12 which probably come from the years 538-520. 
As not belonging to Trito-Isaiah 59:5-8; 66:23, 24 are certain and 
56:1-8 probable, besides minor additions. Cornill^ who held a 
more conservative view earlier now inclines to the same conclusion 
that the prophecy is fashioned after Deutero-Isaiah and is the work 
of one author who lived in Palestine and who wrote not immediately 
after the exile nor later than Nehemiah (181-182). 

d) The fourth and last period to which our chapters have been 
assigned is the second half of the Persian period. Cheyne^ con- 
siders 63:7 — 64:12 as probably belonging in this time, a conclusion 
which Guthe^ is inclined to accept. G. Holscher^ places not only 

I Theol. des A. T., 18942, and Gesck. der Isr. Religion, 1897, 361 f. 

3 Entst. des Judentums 120 f. 3 Op. cit. 4 Op. cit. s Op. cit. 

(>Op. cit. 349-63; cf. Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 

1 Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 291. ^ Paldstina in der Pers. u. Hel. Zeit 37-43. 



70 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

these chapters here but the entire Trito-Isaiah. He agrees with 
Duhm and others that these chapters are a Hterary unity, the work 
of an author who lived in Palestine, and that his work is a polemic 
directed against the Samaritans. "Die Polemik richtet sich also 
gegen Leute, die zum Kultus von Jerusalem gehalten haben aber 
im Begriffe sind, Jahwe zu verlassen und einen eigenen Tempel 
sich bauen wollen" (40). But he dates the prophecies a century 
later, namely in the time of Artaxerxes Ochus. He reverses the 
argument. Instead of dating the Samaritan schism according to 
Neh. 13:28, 29 he dates it according to Isa., chaps. 55-66 and denies 
that Neh. 13:28, 29 has any reference to the schism of Shechem, 
since it only refers to a priest guilty of mixed marriage who continued 
in his office.^ Josephus AizL xi. 7.2; 8.2.4 is best explained as 
a false exegesis of the Nehemiah passage, and is not, as is usually 
done, to be accepted as correct in event but wrong in date. 

The references to the ruins of the walls, 60:10, 15, 62:4, 6, 7, 
he admits, but claims also the ruin of the temple, which does not at 
all fit into the time of Nehemiah. He finds no compelling reason 
for regarding 64:9-11 as a later addition, as Marti does {vide infra). 
Yet he does not use these verses according to which Jerusalem was 
desolate and the temple ruined in flames for an argument, but he 
refers to 63:18, which Duhm and Marti retain, with shght emenda- 
tions. This does not necessarily mean a radical destruction of the 
temple but at any rate a severe damage to it. These words do not 
sound as if the destruction of Jerusalem through Nebuchadrezzar, 
a century or more before, were meant, but evidently one much 
closer. In 60: 18 the writer comforts his readers with the words: 

Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, 
Desolation nor destruction within thy borders. 

For such comfort there must have been occasion at that time. Hence 
Holscher concludes against Marti that at the time of Trito-Isaiah 
.some calamity through war must have befallen the Jews in which 
both the walls and the temple were greatly damaged, an event which 
does not fit into the time of Nehemiah (41). To establish this 
conclusion he adds the following arguments: (a) the mention of a 

I For another view cf. Stade, Gesch. II. 188 f. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 7 1 

Jewish Diaspora, 60:9; 66:19, unknown before Nehemiah; (b) the 
acceptance of proselytes, 56:3 f., the very opposite of Ezra and 
Nehemiah, finding its best explanation in the time of Ruth and 
Jonah; (c) the Nabataeans are elsewhere mentioned only in passages 
after Nehemiah;^ (d) Isa. 65:10 marks a boundary in the east com- 
prehensible only after the destruction of Jericho through Artaxerxes 
Ochus in 352, during whose reign the separation of the Samaritans 
from the Jews took place. Trito-Isaiah would then have a twofold 
purpose: To comfort the pious over the calamity that came upon 
them through the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus, and a polemic 
against the schismatics who are about to build their own temple (42). 
A more detailed examination of 63 : 7 — 64: 12 will help to determine 
the problem before us. The section offers dijEficulties for the period 
just before Nehemiah and has been assigned to the time of Arta- 
xerxes Ochus by several authorities. Various different views have 
been advanced concerning the origin of the passage: (a) As we 
have already seen. Ley, Gressmann, Littmann and Sellin think of 
the time after the return of the exile and before the rebuilding of the 
temple, hence between 538 and 520. They take 64:9-11 to refer 
to the destruction of the temple in 586, and 63: 18 and 66: i f. to the 
condition of the returned exiles, namely, oppression by enemies, and 
before the temple was rebuilt, (b) To this Duhm, Marti, and with 
them Kosters and Cornill, answer that the Kahal was organized, 
Jerusalem inhabited, and the temple built, but the walls in ruins, 
and assign the section to the time immediately before Nehemiah, 
somewhere between 458 and 444. Duhm emends and translates 
63:18: 

For a short time have we possessed thy holy city, 
Our oppressors have trodden down thy sanctuary, 

and sees in it a reference to the conditions referred to in Neh. 1:3. 
The oppressors are the Samaritans. He calls 63: 7 — 64: 12 "without 
doubt the best that Trito-Isaiah has written." The second temple 
exists, but the writer ignores it because of its inferiority to the first, 
just as the old men who had seen the first temple wept at the founda- 
tion-laying of the second temple, Ezr. 3:12, 13. "Our holy and 
our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee," vs. 11, refers 

I Cf. Cheyne in E. B. III. 3,254; Holscher op. cit. 23-25. 



72 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

to the Solomonic temple. Marti sees in 63:18 an unmistakable 
reference to the second temple and thinks the author must have 
lived while it existed. That the author of 64:9-11 ignored the 
second temple and referred to the first can hardly be correct, and so 
he calls the verses a later addition, from the same hand as the gloss 
in 63:15, 16, dating from the time of the Syrian persecution under 
the Maccabees in the second century, (c) Cheyne, to whose view 
Guthe inclines, and Holscher, as we have already seen, find the most 
satisfactory explanation in the history of the reign of Artaxerxes 
Ochus, and think of some calamity that befell Jerusalem and the 
temple at that time, of which traces are found in secular history 
(vide supra). Cheyne considers these verses a unique composition 
different from the rest of chaps. 56-66 which he also places shortly 
before Nehemiah, while Holscher regards the chapters as a unity 
and brings them all into this period. Cheyne^ calls the text of 
63:18 "notoriously doubtful" and emends and translates: 

Why do the wicked trample thy dwelling place ? 
Our adversaries tread down thy sanctuary. 

Marti answers this by pointing out that the verse speaks not of a 
destruction of the temple but of despising it. So he emends and 
translates : 

Why do the ungodly despise (belittle, ridicule) thy temple? 

Why do our adversaries trample down (treat with depreciation) thy sanctuary ? 

This no doubt is the best rendering and gives us the correct thought. 
But Marti's view of the date obhges him to treat 64:9-11 as an 
addition where Duhm is driven to an unwarranted interpretation. 
The date of Cheyne and Holscher makes the interpretation simpler 
if otherwise justifiable. Marti's rendering of 63:18 could then be 
accepted for this period as well as a century earlier, since it is not 
definitely known what calamity befell the temple in the days of 
Ochus. Was it literally burned ? Was it only polluted ? Or 
merely despised and belittled and depreciated? To the Jews the 
last might have been as much of a burden as the first. Must the 
outside historical evidence be absolute before we can date the chapters 
here ? With the strong probability of the external history furnishing 

I Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,207. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 73 

a clearer and more satisfactory explanation of these chapters, why- 
can we not take these chapters to strengthen and confirm the external 
history ? As long as these chapters lose nothing on the one hand by 
placing them in this later period, and on the other gain in clearness 
and historic meaning, is there any reason why they should not be 
placed here ? 

e) One other period was thought of, namely, by GxOtius and 
Hubigant, who assign the chapters to the Maccabaean time, but 
scarcely with sufficient probability. The period would indeed furnish 
the explanation of 64:9-11 as Marti has shown, but the remainder 
of the section does not require so late a date and these verses find 
a reasonable explanation earher. 

If now 63 : 7 — 64: 12 finds reasonable explanation in the late Persian 
period, how about the remainder of chaps. 56-66 ? In answer to the 
five different views advanced with reference to the prophecy as a 
whole the following may be said: (a) That chaps. 40-55 and 56-66 
are not one work but two groups of prophecies from different authors 
and at different times may, thanks to the services of Marti and Duhm, 
and their followers, be accepted as estabhshed, on ground of differ- 
ences in thought content, historic background, and as Cheyne and 
Gressmann have satisfactorily shown, also on ground of difference 
in language, (b) The period of 538-520, aside from the fact that its 
advocate, SeUin, stands alone, is improbable if not impossible for 
reasons already stated. The references to the existence of the second 
temple are too definite, the whole development of the Kahal too 
evident, and the difference in language too great to accept this, 
(c) That the prophecy was written in Jerusalem shortly before the 
arrival of Nehemiah, as Duhm, Marti and others claim, has much 
in its favor. Attention has rightly been called to the existence of the 
Kahal and the temple with its cult, the habitation of Jerusalem, 
Sabbaths and fast-days, the presence of enemies and the coming day 
of revenge upon them, the expectation of a brighter future for Jeru- 
salem and the return of the Diaspora. Points in common with 
Malachi may also be admitted. On the other hand there are diflS- 
culties in the way of this date. First of all is the section 63 : 7—64 : 1 1, 
a part of which at least cannot belong here. Duhm tries to retain 
it but is driven to a forced interpretation for 64:9-11, and Marti is led 



74 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

to consider it a later addition. In either case the unity is broken. 
The mention of a Jewish Diaspora returning from the islands of the 
sea, 60:9; 66:19, and the acceptance of Proselytes 56:3 f. (Holscher) 
does not fit into the time of Nehemiah, The time of Nehemiah was 
still concerned with the return of more exiles, but here the gentiles 
are to come, chap. 60. The similarity with Malachi is not as great 
as we would expect. Sabbaths and fast-days are mentioned but not 
in the same sense. Here there is no emphasis laid on the sins of 
mixed marriages, corrupt priests, and faulty sacrifices as in Malachi. 
(d) Do the closing years of the Persian period (Holscher) offer a 
better background for the prophecy as a whole ? The unity estab- 
lished by Duhm would remain and be strengthened, since that which 
breaks it for a century eariier, 64:9-11, finds a reasonable explana- 
tion here. The existence of the temple is consistent. In fact all 
points in favor of that period also apply here, and the difficulties 
become less. The Diaspora, on the islands of the sea, and the coming 
of the gentiles clearly find a place in this time. The mention of the 
Nabataeans, 60:7, finds an easier explanation in the later date since 
their kingdom was not estabhshed till the close of the fifth century, 
and perhaps not till later. The great difference in language also 
finds an easier explanation here since the difference in two centuries 
would be greater than in one. The apocalyptic element present here 
likewise points to the later rather than the earlier date, (e) To put 
the entire selection into the Maccabaean period is out of the question 
altogether. 

There is another consideration upon which much depends in this 
investigation, namely, the origin of the Samaritan church and their 
temple.^ We know that the Samaritans were the remnant of the 
land, very probably mixed with the peoples planted in the northern 
kingdom by the Assyrian kings. In the days of Josiah they united 
with the Jews in the use of the temple in Jerusalem, II Chron. 34:9. 
The eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mentioned in 
Jer. 41 : 5, can only have been Samaritans. Then for a century we 
have no information concerning them. After the Jews returned 
from the exile the Samaritans were refused a share in the new temple, 

I See Kautzsch Art. "Samaritans" in Realenc., 1906, Vol. 17; Stade Gesch. II. 
188 f.; A. E. Cowley Art. "Samaritans" in E. B. III. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 



75 



Ezra 4:5. But the real cause of the mutual estrangement and the 
implacable hatred between the two must He deeper than this. It 
was the old spirit of opposition between Israel and Judah which had 
asserted itself in the days of Jeroboam I. It was in reality a revolt 
against centralization. Even under David the two kingdoms were 
never fully blended into one. The separation between Jews and 
Samaritans in the later time was poHtical rather than rehgious. 
The Samaritans would have worshipped at Jerusalem in the days 
of Ezra, Ezra 6:21, but the Jews were exclusive and would have no 
deahngs with them. In their condition of social and religious dis- 
organization they found it necessary to pursue the same pohcy as the 
Jews, and to avoid danger to themselves they sought to hinder the 
Jews. This strife continued till they had their own temple on Mount 
Gerizim, after which separation was complete and reunion impossible. 
" Of the Samaritan temple we have no mention in the Old Testament 
and the occasion and date of its erection are ahke difficult."^ Jose- 
phus,^ who places the schism and the erection of the temple under 
Alexander the Great in 332, is generally thought to be incorrect. 
Stade thinks Josephus confuses the events of Neh. 13:28, 29 and 
brings them a century later into the time of Alexander the Great. 
It is probably best to consider the passage in Josephus as a misin- 
terpretation of Neh. 13:28, 29.3 The answer as to the time of the 
Samaritan schism cannot be determined from it nor from Neh. 
13:28, 29 which has no connection with the schism of Shechem. 
That the division took place a century before the temple was built 
is altogether improbable, except that there was a continued hatred 
which found its final culmination only when the temple was once 
built. And the building of the temple, even though the Samaritans 
had the rehgion of the Jews except the results of the exile, depended 
no doubt on the possession of the written Pentateuch. For religious 
documents are not produced by temples, but the life gendered by 
religious teachings results in temples. Since the Pentateuch was 
not completed before the beginning of the fourth century, the Samari- 
tans could not have come into possession of it till after that time, 
and consequently the schism came after 400 b. c, and not in the time 

1 Cowley E. B. 4,259. 3 Cowley E. B. 4,259; Holscher op. cit. 39. 

2 Ant. xi. 7.2; 8.2, 4. 



76 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

of Nehemiah, but rather as Holscher has shown at the time of the 
destruction of Jericho in 352. The schism reached its culmination 
with the building of the temple. And the temple, according to 
Josephus^ was built early in the reign of Alexander the Great, since 
it was destroyed in 128 b. c. after existing two centuries. 

The conclusion reached is that the prevaiHng evidence points to 
the second half of the fourth century, namely, to the reign of Ochus, 
for the origin of Trito-Isaiah. As such it may be accepted as an 
additional source for the history of this dark period, and in turn find 
its most reasonable interpretation in the light of the history of this 
period. 

II. Psalms. — The historic background in the Psalms is far less 
clear and definite than in the prophetic writings. The elements of 
uncertainty we have found in the passages of Isaiah are greatly 
intensified here. Of the Psalms claimed for our period there are 
chiefly four: 44, 74, 79, and d>2). Besides these, also 89, 94, and 132 
were thought of but scarcely with sufiicient reason to merit their con- 
sideration here. The four Psalms first mentioned have, besides many 
others, long been claimed for the Maccabaean period. From the 
days of Theodore of Mopsuestia^ different Psalms were assigned to 
that late period. Without entering into a discussion of that long 
and much disputed problem it may be asserted that the prevaiHng 
consensus of opinion concerning the four Psalms named has been, 
and is today, that they are Maccabaean. Among later critics who 
adhere to thisview,for some or all of them,may be mentioned Dehtzsch, 
74 and 79, Giesebrecht,3 Konig, 74, Reuss, Smend, Driver,4 with some 
hesitancy, particularly for 83, Schurer,^ Wildeboer,^ Baethgen,^ 
Duhm,8 Marti, 74^ Cornill,^° Kittel," and others. 

The chief argument advanced in favor of the Maccabaean time 
is the historic situation, for which fuller sources are at hand than for 
most of the postexiKc time. The desolation of Jerusalem, Psa. 83, 
the burning of the temple, 74:3-7, and of the synagogues, 74:8, the 

1 Ant. xiii. 9.1. 7 Die Ps. ubersetzt u. erkldrt, ad loc. 

2 Ca. 350-429. 8 Die Ps. erkldrt, ad loc. 

3 Z. A. T. W., 1881, 276-332. 9 Das Btich Jes. 218, 400. 

4 Introd. 387 f. ^° Op. cit. 252 f. 

s Op. cit. III. 148-50. " Art. "Psalmen" Realenc, Bd. 16, 209. 

6 Op. cit. 399 f. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 77 

religious persecution, 44:18, 19, 23, the shedding of blood, 79:2, 3, 
the captivity of many Jews, 79:11, their feehng of rejection from 
Jahwe, 74:1, their being mocked and derided, 79:10, 12, 13, are said 
to be calamities experienced only when Jerusalem was captured by 
Nebuchadrezzar, 586, and in the days of the Maccabaean rule. 
The general tone of the Psalms of Solomon is also claimed to point 
to this period. The similarity of II Mace. 8 : 2-4 with Psa. 74 and 79, 
and of I Mace, 5:2 with Ps. 83:4-6, are cited as proof. It must 
be admitted that the Psalms mentioned do fit into the historic situa- 
tion of the Maccabaean time as known in history. Perhaps if we 
knew what we do not know of other periods, the same Psalms could 
be claimed for other periods with equal definiteness. Even this 
period whose history is known is not without difficulties. 

W. R. Smith^ called attention to the difficulties of dating Psa. 
44, 74, 79, and probably also 83, later than the Persian period, and 
sought the occasion for them in the history of Ochus. This view 
had earher been advanced by Ewald.^ The reason for placing 
the Psalms here was found in the external history of the time of 
Ochus {vide supra). The view of W. R. Smith has much in its 
favor. Already the position of these Psalms in the collection is 
difficult for a later period. The canon of the Elohistic Psalter, 
42-83, was hkely closed about the year 300, so that it is difficult to 
think of any later insertions of Psalms into the collection. And if 
inserted by a Maccabaean redactor, we must suppose that he entered 
thoroughly into the spirit of the Elohistic collector,^ which again is 
difficult and improbable. Yet our knowledge of the formation of 
the collections is too indefinite to enable us to speak with anything of 
absolute certainty. ^ 

Ben Sira^ 36:1-17 presupposes exactly the same conditions as 
Psa. 74 and 79. Yet there is no cogent reason advanced for claiming 
this part of Ben Sira as a later addition. More than this, Psa. 
79:2-3 is quoted in I Mace. 7:17 as scripture, Kara rov \6<yov ov 
eypayjre vs. 16. If I Mace, dates from about the year 100 b. c. and 

1 Art. "Psalms" in E. B.9 XX. 31; O. T. J. C.^ 207-8, 437-40. 

2 Dichier des Alien Bundes, 1835, 353; Hist. 0} Isr. V. 120, n. 

3 Cheyne Introd. 100. 4 Schiirer op. cit. 148; Driver op. cit. 387-8. 
s Generally dated at ca. 180. 



^8 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Psa. 79 from about the year 165, then the writer of I Mace, would 
scarcely quote so recent a writing and call it ov eypayjre, since he 
could easily have a personal recollection of the event. All this is not 
indeed decisive but is confirming evidence for the more probable 
earher date. That there was no reUgious persecution in the days 
of Ochus, as Schiirer and Cornill claim, corresponding to Psa. 44: 18, 
19, 23, is hardly consistent with what is known of Ochus in his 
devastation of Egypt and Palestine {vide supra). That there was 
no more a prophet in the land, Psa. 74:8-9, was true long before the 
days of Ochus, for the later writing-prophets were not considered 
as prophets in their own time. bi^Jl'^'l^ilS in Psa. 74:8 is a very 
improbable phrase for the synagogues, and should perhaps read 
^jj^l'iD"' Dili the name of Israel.^ Cheyne, who in his Origin of the 
Psalter, 1891, still held to the Maccabaean origin of Psa. 74 and 79, 
and considered Psa. 89 as probably also belonging in the same time, 
was the first to accept W. R. Smith's argument as historically prob- 
able.^ In his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah 160 f. he compares 
these Psalms with Isa. 63 : 7 — 64: 12 and finds many points in common. 
The language used of the mistreatment of the Jews, of the profaning 
of their temple, of the ruin of their city, and of the desolation of their 
land is indeed more intense in the Psalms than in Trito-Isaiah. And 
this is just what one would expect in subjective poetic hterature where 
the feeUngs are first considered and historic facts are secondary 
matters. 

The conclusion of W. R. Smith was also accepted by G. Beer^ 
and by K. Budde^ in his review of Cheyne's Introduction to the Book 
of Isaiah where he says: Es ist hohe Zeit mit der Meinung auf- 
zuraumen, dass die Psalmen, die von tiefstem nationalem Ungliick 
reden, der Makkabaerzeit angehorten." Guthe^ thinks it probable 
yet not certain that Psa. 44, 74, 79, and also 89, belong in the late 
Persian period. It is unfortunate that Cheyne now seeks to explain 
all these Psahns, as also the passages in Isaiah which he earher 
claimed for the late Persian period, by his Jerahmeehte theory.^ 

1 Cheyne E. B. III. 3,949 and n. i. 

2 New World, September 1891, Review of /. C. O. T.^; Founders, 1892, 220-23. 

3 Individual u. Gemeindepsalmen, 1894, LIV-LVI. 

4 Th. L. Z., 1886, 287. s Gesch. des Volhes Isr. 291. 

6 Art. "Psalms" in E. B. Ill, §28; Art. "Prophetic Literature," §43- 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 79 

It may indeed not be possible to determine with absolute certainty 
where these Psalms had their origin and into what historic back- 
ground they best fit. As in many other instances in the postexilic 
history of the Jews, and concerning the literature of that period, we 
may have to be content to remain in uncertainty. If at all possible 
the solution seems to me to lie in the direction of a better acquaintance 
with the apocalyptic literature. All that can be asserted with any 
confidence is that the prevailing evidence points to this period and 
that the Psalms probably belong here and reflect the experiences 
of the Jewish community at this time. With due allowance for the 
poetic way of expression the contents do not vary greatly from those 
of Trito-Isaiah. If the Psalms are accepted for the reign of Ochus. 
we have valuable additions to the list of sources, and, as well, an 
enlarged and clearer conception of the historic conditions of the time. 

III. Passages from the Minor Prophets. — Among the different 
portions of the Minor Prophets which were thought to have originated 
from the late Persian period the following may be mentioned: 
(i) Joel, chap. 3 [4]; (2) Obad. vss. 1-15; (3) Hab. 1:2 — 2:4, in 
part; and (4) Zech., chap. 14. In no case were any definite de- 
cisive arguments advanced, perhaps because this was impossible, 
perhaps also because the historic background is not yet definitely 
enough defined and the historical data in the passages not yet suffi- 
ciently understood, (i) Joel, chap. 3 [4], is assigned to this period 
by C. F. Kent^ shortly before the deportation of Jews to Hyrcania 
in 353. Others agree that not only chap. 3 but chaps, i and 2, as 
well, fall into the second half of the Persian period but not so far 
down. The year 400 or soon after is thought to be more nearly 
correct by Wildeboer,^ Nowack, Marti, and Cornill. (2) Obad., 
vss. 1-15, was at one time assigned to the time of the deportation to 
Hyrcania by Cheyne,^ who now Hmits their date between 586 and 
312, without any definite period within that time. Nowack agrees 
with this conclusion. Marti places the section at about 500, Wilde- 
boer after 586, and Winckler between this date and 164. No definite 
claims for the reign of Ochus can be made. For (3), Hab. 1:2 — 
2:4, in part, no definite claim was made for this period; and (4), 

1 A Hist, of the Jewish People 236 f. 

2 Op. cit. 345 f. 3 Art. "Obadiah" in E. B. III. 3,661. 



8o ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

Zech., chap. 14, undoubtedly falls with chaps. 12 and 13 into a later 
period. 

Hence the Minor Prophets yield us no definite additional historic 
information for the reign of Ochus. The possibiHty, however, 
remains for such portions yet to be determined. 

IV. Parts of the Book of J oh. — Perhaps no book of the Old Testa- 
ment has been assigned to so wide a range of time as the book of 
Job, through every period from Abraham down to the second century 

B. c, yet with an increasing tendency toward a late date. Naturally 
then someone would find a place for it in the late Persian period. 
Cheyne^ advanced the thought that the original Job story was a 
poetic version of a perfectly righteous man, a second Abraham or 
Noah. Isa. 52 : 13 — 53 : 12 was modeled after this. During the close 
of the Persian or the beginning of the Greek period this treatment 
of the problem of righteous suffering, as presented by the original 
narrator of Job, was found inadequate for practical uses. Hence it 
was adapted to meet the needs of the new age. But this was not yet 
the present form of the book which comes from a date still later. 

C. F. Kent^ follows this view in the main. He considers the prin- 
cipal sections of the book, chaps. 3-31 and 38:1 — 42:6, based on an 
old Job story, to have been written at this time. 

The book of Job in its present form very probably comes from a 
late date, at all events from a postexilic period. The historic data 
in the book are too few to allow any definite assignment of an exact 
date. Whatever the date of the book, the gain from it for the history 
of any period is rather for the inner reHgious development, and only 
indirectly for the external history. 

V. The Apocryphal Books. — (i) The Book of Judith. Ewald^ 
already observed that the story of the book of Judith has its back- 
ground in the history of the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus. He also 
assigned the writing of the book to that age. The conclusion that 
the book was written as early as the fourth century has long since 
been shown to be impossible. It must at all events be later than the 
Maccabaean period and may come from a century or more later. 
W. R. Smith,4 following Gutschmied and Noldeke, thinks it "probable 

1 Jewish Rel. Life after the Exile 158-72. 3 Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 

2 Op. cii. 236 f. 4 Op. cit. 439. 



OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 8 1 

that the wars under Ochus form the historic background of the book 
of Judith and that the name Holophernes is taken from that of a 
general of Ochus who took a prominent part in the Egyptian cam- 
paign." Schiirer' thinks this probable and Holscher^ considers it 
estabHshed beyond a doubt. He sees in Holophernes and Bagoas 
historic personages whereas Judith is Judaism personified. Mar- 
quart,3 Winckler^ and Willrich^ find the solution here as in so many 
other instances in a change of names. Holophernes is not Holo- 
phernes but for one it is Aristazanes, for the other Assurbanipal, 
and for the third Odoarras, with nothing but confusing results. 

The most satisfactory view seems to me that the book, though 
written late, has its background in the history of the reign of Ochus. 
Then we have not indeed additional history of that period but con- 
firming evidence that the history as constructed is correct. 

(2) The Book of Tobit, which Ewald^ thought probably to date 
from this period, has been satisfactorily shown to come from nearly 
two centuries later, and consequently needs no further consideration 
here. 

D. SUMMARY RESULT 

The summary will evidently be a bringing together of that which 
has already been given in the separate investigations. As certainly 
dating from the reign of Ochus are Isa. 23:1-14 and Isa. 19:1-15. 
Trito-Isaiah very probably also comes from the same time. Not 
certain, yet probable, are Psa. 44, 74, 79, and 83 as subjective 
presentations of the same historic situation as that which Trito- 
Isaiah gives us. The Book of Judith does not come from this time 
but has its background in the history of the reign of Ochus and re- 
flects confirming Hght upon it. In Isa. 14:28-32 there are probably 
also to be found reflections of the campaigns of Ochus in Palestine, 
though the passage does not date from that reign. Of the remaining 
passages considered none yield sufficiently clear evidence to justify 
their acceptance for sources of the history of the reign of Ochus, 

I Op. cit. III. 170 and n. 19. ^ Qp. cit. 35. 

3 Philologus liv, 1895, 507-10. 

4 AUorientalische Forschungen II, 1899, 266-76. 

5 Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabdischen Erhebung, 1895, 88-90. 

6 Op. cit. 



82 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 

although in the case of some it is equally impossible to say that 
they do not date from this period. 

Isa. 23:1-14 corroborates the history of the campaign of Ochus 
against Sidon, and Isa. 19:1-15 the impending campaign against 
Egypt, as we have found them recorded in extra-biblical history. 
Isa., chaps. 56-66, shows us the relation between Jews and Samaritans 
during the close of the Persian period, their long-continued hatred, 
and their final separation resulting from the building of the temple 
on Mount Gerizim soon after the close of the reign of Ochus. Not 
only have we in Trito-Isaiah confirming evidence of the history of 
the reign of Ochus as we found it elsewhere, but it gives us a clearer 
picture of what the Jews suffered at the hands of Ochus. This 
suffering is presented more intensely in the Psalms probably dating 
from this time. The presentation is more intense because it is 
subjectively contemplated. A later reflection of the same history 
appears in the Book of Judith. 

Every portion of the Old Testament finds its true and larger mean- 
ing when it is interpreted in the hght of its true history. To find 
this larger meaning, and to interpret it to others, is the supreme aim 
of the student of the Old Testament. That many of the passages 
treated in this discussion have been meaningless until they were 
interpreted historically, every Old Testament student will admit. 
If in any way the writer has succeeded in bringing to light a larger 
meaning, or at least has directed the attention of others, as he has 
for himself, to the beauty and deeper significance of the historic 
truth and the religious message contained in some of these passages, 
then his purpose is accomphshed. 



APPENDIX 

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES 

A. CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF OCHUS 

B. C. 

358 Nectanebus II, King of Egypt, 361-343. 
Philip II, King of Macedon, 359-336. 

Death of Artaxerxes II, Mnemon, King of Persia, 404-358. 
Accession of Artaxerxes III, Ochus, to the throne of Persia, 358-338. 
Death of Agesilaus, King of Sparta, 398-358. 
357 First war between Philip and Athens, 357-346, 

War of the separate League of Rhodes, Chios, and Byzantium against 
Athens, 357-355- 
356 Ochus commands the coast satraps to dismiss their mercenary troops. 

Revolt of Artabazus, and Orontes who fortifies Pergamon. 
355 Outbreak of the Phocian war, 355-346. 

Ochus makes preparations for the campaign in the west. 
Orontes subdued by Autophradates. 
354 Artabazus seeks help from the Thebans. 
353 Conflict of the Persians with revolting Jews. Jericho conquered. 

Second campaign of Ochus against Egypt, under the command of his 

generals. 
Pammenes sent by Thebes to assist Artabazus. 
Athens supports the revolting Egyptians. 
Orontes subdued by Ochus. 

Demosthenes' speech, " De Rhodiorum Libertate." 
Independence of the Rhodians. 
352 League between Orontes and Athens. 

Disagreement between Artabazus and Pammenes. Artabazus flees to 

Macedon. 
Peace between Ochus and Orontes. Orontes made satrap of western 
Asia Minor. 
351 Ochus makes preparations against Egypt. 

Revolt in Sidon and entire Phoenicia against Persia. 

Revolt in Cyprus. Euagoras II, of Salamis, banished. Pnytagoras made 

king in his stead. 
League between Phoenicia and Egypt. 
Idrieus satrap of Karia, 351-344. 

Mizaeus of Celicia and Belesys of Syria sent by Ochus to suppress the 
revolt in Cyprus. Repulsed. 
350 Phocion and Euagoras II land in Egypt and blockade Salami. 
349 Ochus seeks aid from the cities of Greece. Athens and Sparta neutral. 
Thebes and Argos send aid. 

83 



84 



ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 



349 Pnytagoras recognized by the Persians as king of Salamis. 
348 Ochus in Syria. Sidon destroyed. Phoenicia conquered. Euagoras II 
satrap in Sidon. 

The Jews oppressed by Bagoas. 
346 First attempt by Ochus in his third campaign against Egypt, 346-343. 

Peace between Athens and PhiHp II. 
345 Second attempt of Ochus against Egypt. Nectanebus II flees to Memphis. 

Mentor appointed by Ochus over the satrapies of western Asia Minor. 
344 League between PhiHp and Ochus. 
343 Conquest of Egypt. Nectanebus II flees to Ethiopia. 

Pharendates appointed satrap of Egypt. 

Ochus returns to Persia. 
340 Ochus refused to enter into a league with Athens against Philip. 
339 Nectanebus II dies. 

Persian troops in Thrace fighting against Macedon. 
338 Battle of Chaeronea. 

Peace between Philip and Athens. 

PhiUp commander-in-chief over Hellenic troops against Persia. 

Death of Ochus. Succeeded by Arses, 338-335. 
336 Death of Philip II. Succeeded by Alexander the Great. 

— Compiled 

B. CHRONOLOGY OP THE PERSIAN EMPIRE 

B. C. B. C. 

550-529 Artaxerxes III, Ochus . . 358-338 

529-522 Arses 33^-335 

Darius III, Codomannus . 335-331 

521-485 Alexander the Great . . 331-323 

485-464 The divided Empire . . 323-242 

464-424 The Parthian Empire 
424-423 242 B. C.-224 A. D. 

A. D. 

423-404 The Sasanian Empire . . 224-652 
404-358 Modem Persia .... 652- 



Cyrus 

Cambyses .... 

Gaumata 

Darius I, Hystaspis . 

Xerxes I 

Artaxerxes I, Longimanus 

Xei-xes II 

Sogdianus .... 

Darius II 

Artaxerxes II, Mnemon 



-After NoLDEKE 



CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT 



B. C. 

Persian Province . . • 525-408 

Amyrtaios 408-402 

Nepherites I 402-396 

Akoris 396-383 

Psammut 383-382 

Muthes 382-381 

Nepherites II .... 381 



Nectanebus I 
Tachos .... 
Nectanebus II 
Artaxerxes III, Ochus 
Arses .... 
Darius III, Codomannus 
Alexander the Great 



381-363 
363-361 
361-343 
343-338 
338-335 
335-33'^ 
33^-3^3 



APPENDIX 



85 



D. CHRONOLOGY OF THE SELEUCIDAE. CAPITAL AT ANTIOCH 



Seleucus I, Nicator . 
Antiochus I, Soter . 
Antiochus II, Theos 
Seleucus II, Callinicus . 
Seleucus III, Ceraunus or 

Antiochus III, The Great 
Seleucus IV, Philopater 
Antiochus IV, Epiphanes 
Antiochus V, Eupator . 
Demetrius I, Soter . 
Alexander I, Balas . 
Demetrius II, Nicator . 



B. c. 

. 312-280 

281-261 

261-246 

246-226 

Soter 

226-223 
222-187 
187-175 
175-164 
164-162 
162-150 
153-145 
145-139 
-After W. 



B. C. 
145-142 
139-129 
138-129 
129-125 



Antiochus VI, Dionysus 
Demetrius in Parthia 
Antiochus VII, Sidetes . . 
Demetrius II, Nicator . 
Alexander II and Seleucus V 
Antiochus VIII, Grypus . 125-96 
Antiochus IX, Cyzicenus . 116-95 
Seleucus VI, Epiphanes Nicator 96-95 

Antiochus X 94-83 

Philippus I and Demetrius III 
Antiochus XIII, Asiaticus . . 69-65 
Syria a Roman Province . . 63- 

J. WooDHOUSE in E. B. IV. 4,347 f. 



E. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PTOLEMIES 



Ptolemy I, Lagi . 
Ptolemy II, Philadelphus 
Ptolemy III, Euergetes . 
Ptolemy IV, Philopator 
Ptolemy V, Epiphanes . 
Ptolemy VI, Philometor 



B. c. 

323-285 
285-246 
246-222 
222-205 
205-181 
181-145 



Ptolemy VII, Physkon . 

Ptolemy Lathurus . 
Ptolemy Alexander . 
Ptolemy Lathurus (second time) 



B. c. 
170-164 

145-117 

I 17-107 

107- 89 



3- 81 



—After GuTHE, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 311. 



f?lAY 2 9 i^i^» 



LBJa'IO 



rtaxerxes iii ochus and 
His Reign 



WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
SOURCES BEARING UPON THE PERIOD 



AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION 

JBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OP BERN 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTOR'S DEGREE 



BY 



NOAH CALVIN HIRSCHY 

OFJBERNE, INDIANA 



ACCEPTED BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY UPON THE 
PROPOSAL OF PROFESSOR DR. K. MARTI 

PROFESSOR DR. G. TOBLER 



BERN 
JULY 16, 1907 



DEAN 



CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 

1909 











Class. 
BooL 



Copyiight}^?. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2003 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



